State v. McCorkendale’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 123 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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Kansas does not ordinarily apply the plain error rule, and reversible error normally cannot be predicated upon a complaint of misconduct by the prosecutor during closing argument where no contemporaneous objection is lodged. If the prosecutor’s statements, however, rise to the level of violating a defendant’s right to a fair trial and deny a defendant his or her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process, reversible error occurs despite the lack of a contemporaneous objection. Where the appellate court, in examining a claimed error of prosecutorial misconduct, determines that the misconduct may rise to the level of violating a defendant’s right to a fair trial, the claimed error will be considered. Thus, die plain error rule is recognized where the prosecutor’s misconduct is so prejudicial or constitutes a constitutional violation that if not corrected will result in injustice or a miscarriage of justice.” 267 Kan. 263 , Syl. ¶ 5. “The analysis of the effect of a prosecutor’s allegedly improper remarks in closing argument is a two-step process. First, the appellate court must determine whether the remarks were outside die considerable latitude the prosecutor is allowed in discussing the evidence. This analysis commences with the holding that in criminal trials, the prosecution is given wide latitude in language and in manner or presentation of closing argument as long as it is consistent with the evidence adduced. Second, the appellate court must determine whether the remarks”

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

2. ““[I]n order to credit the defendant’s argument, we must assume that the jury did not follow the instructions given by the trial court. There is simply no basis in the record to establish that the juiy in this case did not follow the trial court’s instructions. While we agree that the remarks of the State were an incorrect statement of the law on involuntary intoxication and constitute error, we conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that such remarks had little, if any, likelihood of changing the result of tile trial.” 267 Kan. at 284 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 59 Kan. App. 2d 418 - State v. Brown · State v. Bell

3. ““Voluntariness of a confession is determined from the totality of the circumstances, and where a trial court conducts a full prehearing on the admissibility of extrajudicial statements by the accused, determines the statements were freely and voluntarily given, and admits the statements into evidence at trial, appellate courts accept that determination if supported by substantial competent evidence and do not attempt to reweigh the evidence. [Citation omitted.]” State v. McCorkendale, 267 Kan. 263, 270-71 , 979 P.2d 1239 (1999).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Pink · 30 Kan. App. 2d 756 - State v. Sweat