State v. Hebert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

160 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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘An error of constitutional magnitude is serious and may not be held to be harmless unless the appellate court is willing to declare a belief that the error is harmless. Before an appellate court may declare such an error harmless, the court must be able to declare beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial. Where the evidence of guilt is of such direct and overwhelming nature that it can be said that evidence erro neously admitted or excluded in violation of a constitutional or statutory right could not have affected the result of the trial, such admission or exclusion is harmless.’ [Citation omitted.]””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Patton · State v. Warledo

2. “"`"[T]he term `interrogation' under Miranda refers not only to express questioning, but also to any words or actions on the part of the police (other than those normally attendant to arrest and custody) that the police should know are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response from the suspect. The latter portion of this definition focuses primarily upon the perceptions of the suspect, rather than the intent of the police. This focus reflects the fact that the Miranda safeguards were designed to vest a suspect in custody with an added measure of protection against coercive police practices, without regard to objective proof of the underlying intent of the police. A practice that the police should know is reasonably likely to evoke an incriminating response from a suspect thus amounts to interrogation."' Dudley, 264 Kan. at 643 (quoting Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 301 , 64 L. Ed. 2d 297 , 100 S. Ct. 1682 [1980])." Hebert, 277 Kan. at 69 . "`It is well established that volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by the Miranda holding. [Citations omitted.] Moreover, an accused's statement may be found to be voluntary and spontaneous and, thus, admissible even though it is made after the accused is arrested and in custody.'" [Citations omitted.] State v. Richardson, 256 Kan. 69, 86 , 883 P.2d 1107 (1994) (quoting State v. Mooney, 10 Kan. App. 2d 477, 480 , 702 P.2d 328 , rev. denied 238 Kan.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Palacio · State v. Brian I. Harris

3. “'[w]ould . . . like the opportunity to tell [him his] side of the story,'”

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