State v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 60 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The admission of photographs in a homicide case is a matter within the trial court’s discretion, and the court’s ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of that discretion. State v. Reed, 256 Kan. 547, 557 , 886 P.2d 854 (1994). While photographs which are unduly repetitious, gruesome, and without probative value should not be admitted into evidence, demonstrative photographs are not inadmissible merely because they are gruesome and shocking where they are true reproductions of relevant physical facts and material conditions at issue. 256 Kan. at 557 . “ “We have held that special care should be taken in admitting photographs taken after a pathologist has intervened in order that the evidence not be more gruesome than necessary. See State v. Prouse, 244 Kan. 292 , Syl. ¶ 1, 767 P.2d 1308 (1989). In State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373, 377-78 , 532 P.2d 1064 (1975), we held that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting a photograph of the victim ‘laid out like a disemboweled beef in a packing plant,’ where such a photograph was repetitious and cause of death was not in dispute. However, it is well settled that photographs which serve to illustrate the nature or extent of the wounds inflicted are admissible when they corroborate the testimony of witnesses or are relevant to the testimony of a pathologist as to the cause of death. State v. Spears, 246 Kan. 283, 286 , 788 P.2d 261 (1990).’ State v. Carr, 265 Kan. 608, 623 , 963 P.2d 421 (1998).””

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

2. ““Subject to K.S.A. 60-447 evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his or her disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that the person committed another crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but, subject to K.S.A. 60-445 and 60-448 such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.””

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

3. “The State contends that the defendant failed to object at trial and therefore the issue of admissibility is not properly before us. The record supports this contention. A hearing outside the presence of the jury was held on whether Jared was competent to testify, and the court ruled that he was not. As a result, the court held a hearing at the request of the State as to whether certain hearsay statements could be admitted. After a thorough hearing, the court reserved ruling on the issue pending further consideration of the parties’ arguments and authorities. Three days later, the court ruled that the hearsay testimony was admissible under K.S.A. 60-460(d)(2) and (3). On the second day after the court’s ruling, the hearsay statements were introduced without the objection of the defendant. At the time these statements were admitted at trial, no contemporaneous objection was made by the defendant. The defendant contends that her objection to the testimony was sufficiently noted, citing State v. Bowman, 252 Kan. 883, 887-88 , 850 P.2d 236 (1993). In Bowman , we held that a defendant satisfied the contemporaneous objection rule when he objected prior to the testimony and the testimony was then admitted directly afterward. 252 Kan. at 888 , 850 P.2d 236 . However, the facts in this case are quite different. Here, a full 2 days of trial elapsed before the State attempted introduction of the statements. We have held that the failure to timely object at trial to alleged hearsay statem”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Carr v. Koerner