State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In a firearm criminal possession case, what fact does the State seek to establish by offering into evidence a defendant’s prior record through a journal entry? The answer is the defendant’s status as a prior convicted felon. Lee agreed to stipulate to prior convicted felon status. We see no need to admit into evidence a journal entry reflecting the type and nature of a prior conviction in order to prove that Lee was a convicted felon. * * * Unless there is a dispute over the status of the prior conviction (for example, was it or was it not a felony), the admission of the type and nature of the prior crime can only prejudice the jury. See Brown, 719 So. 2d at 886 . Under the limited focus here, what countervailing interests support admission of the type and nature of the felony? There are none in a status case. ❖ * ❖ We acknowledge that the State has the right and, in fact the duty, to establish the elements of the crime charged. The State also has an interest in presenting its case in its own way by telling the story as the State wishes. But, Lee should be judged only on the crimes charged and, as Brown observed, ‘not being convicted on an improper ground due to the admission of evidence that carries unfairly prejudicial baggage.’ ” Lee, 266 Kan. at 813-15 , 977 P.2d at 269-70 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Jemison Jr., D., Aplt. · 211 Ill. 2d 317 - People v. Walker

2. ““Except as in this article otherwise provided, the judge may in his or her discretion exclude evidence if he or she finds that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk that its admission will unfairly and harmfully surprise a party who has not had reasonable opportunity to anticipate that such evidence would be offered.” K.S.A. 60-445.”

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

3. “[n]either [those] documents nor the number and nature of the prior convictions should be disclosed to the trial jury.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Guebara · 26 Kan. App. 2d 127 - State v. Gill