State v. Hurt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘If you’re not convinced—first of all, if you are convinced that he’s guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, check the guilty box, and you’re done with that count. ‘Cause, if you’re convinced that he’s guilty of that highest count, you need not go down any further to consider second-degree or voluntary. “ ‘It’s only if you’re not convinced, all 12 of ya, that he’s guilty of premeditated, and then you move your way down and ask yourself, Well, certainly, he intended to but maybe it wasn’t premeditated. Again, read that definition of premeditation to yourselves and ask yourself, how can there [have] been any dispute that this was premeditated. “ ‘Finally, if you’re not convinced that this was a premeditated or even an intentional second-degree murder, then you’re required to consider voluntary manslaughter.’ ” 278 Kan. at 681-82 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hudgins · State v. Scott-Herring

2. ““The offense of Involuntary Manslaughter-Driving Under the Influence with which defendant is charged includes the lesser offense of Driving Under the Influence. “You may find the defendant guilty or not guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter-Driving Under the Influence. “You may find the defendant guilty or not guilty of Driving Under tire Influence. “When there is a reasonable doubt as to which of two or more offenses defendant is guilty, he may be convicted of the lesser offense only. “Your Presiding Juror should mark the appropriate verdict.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brammer

3. ““Premeditation and heat of passion are mutually exclusive concepts. In other words, if a murder was premeditated, it cannot have been tire result of heat of passion. [Citation omitted.] Thus, there is no need for the jury to consider evidence of heat of passion at the same time it considers evidence of premeditation.” 278 Kan. at 683 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lawrence