State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When reviewing challenges to jury instructions, we are required to consider all the instructions together, read as a whole, and not to isolate any one instruction. If the instructions properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case, and a jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error even if they are in some way erroneous. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Mitchell, 269 Kan. 349, 355 , 7 P.3d 1135 (2000).”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Kirby · 33 Kan. App. 2d 391 - State v. Patton

2. “'have been developed by a knowledgeable committee to bring accuracy, clarity, and uniformity to jury instructions.'”

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

3. ““We highly encourage courts to follow the language found in the PIK instructions unless die facts of the case dictate otherwise. The uniform use of PIK instruction language is a highly desirable goal, a goal which takes very little effort to effectuate. Use of the PIK instruction language helps to protect the rights of criminal defendants in our courts and significantly reduces the number of criminal appeals and issues raised in appeals of criminal cases.” 269 Kan. at 357 .”

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