State v. Cravatt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 71 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Circumstances which may give rise to the inference of premeditation include: (1) the nature of the weapon used; (2) lack of provocation; (3) the defendant’s conduct before and after the killing; (4) threats and declarations of the defendant before and during the occurrence; and (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the deceased was felled and rendered helpless.’ ” State v. Murillo, 269 Kan. 281, 286 , 7 P.3d 264 (2000) (quoting State v. Cravatt, 267 Kan. 314, 328-29, 979 P.2d 679 [1999]).”

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

2. ““Unless a person actually communicates liis or her reasons for taking another’s life, evidence of premeditation must be proved by circumstantial evidence. . . . Premeditation cannot be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon alone, but it may be inferred where other circumstances also exist. [Citation omitted.] “The circumstances which may give rise to an inference of premeditation include but are not limited to (1) tire nature of the weapon used, (2) a lack of provocation, (3) tire defendant’s conduct before and after the killing, (4) threats and/or declarations made by tire defendant before and after tire killing, and (5) lethal blows inflicted after the deceased was felled and rendered helpless.””

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

3. ““In determining drat a prosecutor’s improper remarks made in closing argument are not so gross and flagrant as to prejudice the jury against tire accused and deny him or her a fair trial, the reviewing court must be able to find that when viewed in light of the record as a whole, the error had little, if any, likelihood of changing dre result of the trial. This is a harmless error analysis. The court must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. Each case must be scrutinized on its particular facts to determine whether prosecutorial misconduct is harmless error or plain error when viewed in the light of the trial record as a whole.” 267 Kan. at 332 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 Kan. App. 2d 28 - State v. HILL, JR.