State v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 47 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. “[a]ll evidence that is derogatory to the defendant is by its nature prejudicial to the defendant's claim of not guilty.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Showalter · State v. Carr

2. “Photographs are unduly prejudicial . . . when they are unduly repetitious, are particularly gruesome, add nothing to the State's case, and bring about a wrong result.”

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

3. ““ ‘An appellate court’s review of the trial court’s admission of evidence is a two-step process. First, it must determine whether the evidence was admissible or inadmissible. Then, if the evidence was improperly admitted, it must determine whether to apply the harmless error rule of review or the federal constitutional error rule to the erroneous admission of that evidence.’ [Citation omitted.] “ ‘Review of the admission or the exclusion of evidence is usually governed by the harmless error rule. K.S.A. 60-261 provides that no error in either the admission or the exclusion of evidence by the court is a ground for granting a new trial or for setting aside a verdict unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice. The court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding which does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. [Citation omitted.] “ ‘Under the federal constitutional error rule, an error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Before we may declare the error harmless, we must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. [Citation omitted.]’ ” 272 Kan. at 416-17.”

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