Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 284 Kan. 333 - State v. White

State v. White’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
1
states following
October 2021
most recently cited

90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably State v. Ward (2011), State v. King (2009)

90 state decisions

520200720102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Chapman v. State of California · Griffin v. United States · 7 Cal. 4th 768 - People v. Christian S. · 12 Cal. 4th 186 - People v. Barton · State v. Pabst

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

  1. ““Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct require a two-step analysis. First, the appellate court must determine whether the comments were outside the wide latitude allowed in discussing the evidence. Second, the appellate court must decide whether those comments constitute plain error; that is, whether the statements prejudiced the jury against the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial, thereby requiring reversal.” State v. White, 284 Kan. 333 , Syl. ¶ 1, 161 P.3d 208 (2007).”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"`"A trial court must instruct the jury on a lesser included offense ` where there is some evidence which would reasonably justify a conviction' of the lesser offense. [Citation omitted.] `If the defendant requests the instructions, the trial court has a duty to instruct the jury regarding all lesser included crimes that are established by the evidence, regardless of whether the evidence is weak or inconclusive.' [Citation omitted.] ` However the duty to so instruct arises only where there is evidence supporting the lesser crime. ' [Citation omitted.]. An instruction on a lesser included offense is not required if the jury could not reasonably convict the defendant of the lesser included offense based on the evidence presented. [Citation omitted]."' State v. Boyd, 281 Kan. 70, 93 , 127 P.3d 998 (2006) (quoting State v. Drennan, 278 Kan. 704, 712-13 , 101 P.3d 1218 [2004])." (Emphasis added.)”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"The trial court may terminate the trial and order a mistrial at any time that he finds termination is necessary because: .... "(c) prejudicial conduct, in or outside the courtroom, makes it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice to either the defendant or the prosecution."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.