State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have held that a criminal defendant has a right to an instruction on all lesser included offenses supported by the evidence at trial so long as (1) the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant’s theory, would justify a jury verdict in accord with the defendant’s theory and (2) the evidence at trial does not exclude a theory of guilt on the lesser offense.””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Calderon · State v. Hebert

2. ““We have allowed the use of statements which would otherwise be hearsay to show that the defendant’s story had changed over time, to show the defendant’s state of mind, or to show that a Miranda warning was given. [Citations omitted.] However in this case, the statements were offered by the State as evidence of premeditation on the part of the defendant, and the content of the statements themselves reflect such premeditation. “In State v. Oliphant, 210 Kan. 451, 454 , 502 P.2d 626 (1972), we identified three types of statements exempted from the hearsay rule when offered, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but without reference to such a truth. These three groups are: (1) those statements material to the case as part of the issue; (2) those statements which are verbal parts of an act; and (3) those statement used circumstantially as giving rise to an indirect inference but not as an assertion to prove the matter asserted. The State argues that the statements made in this case fall under the third categorization used in Oliphant . According to the State, the evidence was used indirectly to infer premeditation on the part of the defendant. “However, the only way in which the evidence can be used to infer premeditation on the part of the defendant is if the statements asserted were true, i.e., if the guards were actually cracking down on the Vice Lords and the Vice Lords felt that drey should get even. . . . “ . . . The fact that the defendant merely heard these statement”

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

3. ““Although the statement indicated that some members of tire Vice Lords had previously threatened officers, there was no evidence that tire defendant himself had ever threatened officers. The purpose of K.S.A. 60-455 is to forbid introduction or crimes or civil wrongs committed by tire defendant in a criminal action or party in a civil action for the purpose of showing tire party’s disposition to commit a crime or civil wrong. In a criminal action, it applies only to tire defendant. [Citation omitted.] In this case, the prior actions of tire Vice Lords are not the actions of the defendant, and the evidence was properly admissible independent of K.S.A. 60-455.” 259 Kan. at 702 .”

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