State v. Rinck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment affords the accused the right to cross-examination. [Citation omitted.] A proper and important function of the right to cross-examination is the exposure of the witness’ motivation in testifying. [Citation omitted.] Generally, the right to cross-examine witnesses is subject to evidentiary rules, and the trial court has broad discretion in controlling the examination. [Citation omitted.] “ ‘Error in restriction of cross-examination is subject to a harmless error standard if the reviewing court can declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little if any likelihood of changing the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.] However, there are certain circumstances in which the denial of effective cross- examination amounts to a constitutional error of such magnitude that no showing of prejudice is required for reversal. [Citation omitted.]’ ” 261 Kan. at 654 (quoting State v. Rinck, 256 Kan. 848, 854 , 888 P.2d 845 [1995]).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sanders · State v. Bornholdt

2. ““We also note that Higgins predates this court’s decision in State v. Fike, 243 Kan. 365 , 757 P.2d 724 (1988). Fike established a two-prong analysis to determine lesser included offenses. Under the second prong of Fike , not considered by Higgins , the court must examine the allegations of the indictment, complaint, or information, as well as the evidence which must be adduced at trial, and if the allegations allege a lesser crime and the evidence which must be adduced at trial would also prove the lesser crime, the lesser crime is an included crime. 243 Kan. at 368, 757 P.2d 724 . This court in Warren used the second prong of Fike to conclude that the defendant’s convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated battery were multiplicitous. 252 Kan. at 181 .” 256 Kan. at 850 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Schoonover

3. “could not have affected the result at trial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ward