State v. Foster’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘First, is the misconduct so gross and flagrant as to deny the accused a fair trial (i.e., are the objectionable statements likely to affect the jurors to the defendant’s prejudice)? Second, do the remarks show ill will on the prosecutor’s part? Third, is the evidence against the defendant of such a direct and overwhelming nature that it can be said that the prejudicial remarks of the prosecutor were likely to have little weight in the minds of the jurors?’ ” State v. Foster, 259 Kan. at 204 (quoting State v. Lewis, 238 Kan. 94, 98 , 708 P.2d 196 [1985]).”

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

2. ““ ‘Improper remarks made in closing argument are grounds for reversal only when they are so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against the defendant and deny him a fair trial. [Citation omitted.] The prosecutor is entitled to considerable latitude in arguing the case to a jury. There is no prejudicial error where the questionable statements of a prosecuting attorney are provoked and made in response to previous arguments or statements of defense counsel. [Citation omitted.] Since Kansas does not follow the “plain error” rule used in federal courts, reversible error cannot be predicated upon a complaint of misconduct of counsel during closing argument where no contemporaneous objection is lodged. [Citation omitted.] Remarks made by the prosecutor in closing argument are harmless error if the court finds that the error had little likelihood of changing the result of the trial.’ State v. Baker, 249 Kan. 431, 446 , 819 P.2d 1173 (1991).” State v. Sexton, 256 Kan. 344, 363 , 886 P.2d 811 (1994).”

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

3. ““No rule governing oral argument is more fundamental than that requiring counsel to confine remarks to matters in evidence. The stating of facts not in evidence is clearly improper. However, in summing up a case, a prosecutor may draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and is allowed considerable latitude in discussing the evidence.” State v. Foster, 259 Kan. 198 , Syl. ¶ 2, 910 P.2d 848 (1996).”

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