State v. Vargas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In reviewing a Batson violation concerning the State's use of a peremptory challenge, the applicable appellate standard of review is whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining if the challenged strikes were constitutionally permissible. State v. Walston, 256 Kan. 372, 373-74 , 886 P.2d 349 (1994). Judicial discretion is abused only when exercised in an arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable manner, or in other words, when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. Walston, 256 Kan. at 374 (citing State v. Wagner, 248 Kan. 240, 242 , 807 P.2d 139 [1991]). "The Batson analysis involves a three-step process. First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the prosecutor has exercised peremptory challenges on the basis of race. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97 . Second, if the requisite showing has been made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the jurors in question. 476 U.S. at 97-98 . Finally, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has carried his or her burden of proving purposeful discrimination. 476 U.S. at 98 ."”

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

2. ““While the judge’s analysis could have been more detailed, his comments establish that he considered not only the gravity of the offense, but also Vargas’ prior juvenile history, the pending juvenile matters, the aggressive manner in which the crime was committed, the fact that the crime was against a person rather than property, and the interest of the community in prosecuting the defendant as an adult. Under these circumstances and mindful that the failure to find one or more of the factors adverse to respondent does not preclude the trial court from concluding that respondent should be prosecuted as an adult, [citation omitted], we hold there was substantial evidence to support the court’s decision to allow the prosecution of Vargas as an adult.” 260 Kan. at 800-01 .”

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

3. “The scope of cross-examination is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court and, absent a showing of clear abuse, the exercise of that discretion will not constitute prejudicial error.”

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