State v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “"`(1) whether the misconduct was gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct showed ill will on the prosecutor's part; and (3) whether the evidence was of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have had little weight in the minds of jurors. None of these three factors is individually controlling. Moreover, the third factor may not override the first two factors unless the harmless error tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 [refusal to grant new trial is inconsistent with substantial justice] and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L.Ed.2d 705 , 87 S.Ct. 824 (1967) [conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the result of the trial], have been met. [Citations omitted.]' [Citation omitted.]" McReynolds, 288 Kan. at 323 , 202 P.3d 658 .”

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

2. “When a defendant claims that a prosecutor committed reversible misconduct, the prejudicial nature of alleged errors is analyzed in the context of the trial record as a whole.”

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

3. “[I]f a trial court reaches the right result, its decision will be upheld even if it provided an incorrect reason or engaged in an improper legal analysis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 44 Kan. App. 2d 986 - State v. Hart