State v. Spresser’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he rule we enforce is that if the defendant does not object to an improper closing argument the error is waived and if the defendant objects and the trial judge instructs the jury to disregard the improper argument the error is cured. “I am very concerned that prosecutors who have an ethical obligation to insure that defendants receive a fair trial are aware of this court’s tendency as set forth above. We are seeing far too many unethical, improper closing arguments. If this trend continues, I see no alternative but to grant a new trial even though the trial judge instructs the jury to disregard the improper remarks.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 24 Kan. App. 2d 580 - State v. Price · State v. Ordway

2. ““Although we have recognized there may be remarks that are so prejudicial as to be incurable, neither the briefs of counsel nor our research has disclosed a case where we have held the remark to be incurable. The facts herein do not support declaring the improper remark to be the first incurable remark in our case law. It is difficult to understand why such an experienced prosecutor as the Shawnee County District Attorney would make such a patently improper comment in closing argument, but that fact does not alter the outcome of the issue. We find no reversible error in this issue.” 257 Kan. at 672.”

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

3. ““Evidence that has a direct bearing on, and a relation to, the commission of an offense is admissible without a limiting instruction and is not rendered inadmissible because it may disclose other or independent offenses. The law allows tire admission of evidence as part of the res gestae of acts made before, during, or after the principal event. State v. Bowman, 252 Kan. 883 , Syl. ¶¶ 2, 5, 850 P.2d 236 (1993). If the evidence is a part of the res gestae of die offenses for which a defendant is being tried, such evidence may be introduced independent of K.S.A. 60-455. See State v. Gilder, 223 Kan. 220, 228 , 574 P.2d 196 (1977). “Acts done or declarations made before, during, or after the happening of the principal fact may be admissible as part of die res gestae where they are so closely connected with it as to form in reality a part of the occurrence. Evidence that does not constitute a portion of the crimes charged is admissible if there are some natural, necessary, or logical connections between the evidence and the inference or result which it is designed to establish. State v. Davis, 236 Kan. 538, 539 , 694 P.2d 418 (1985).” 257 Kan. at 667-68 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 Kan. App. 2d 921 - State v. Spurlock