State v. McCaslin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

231 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 231 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘ “'When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” ’ [Citation omitted.]” State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 710 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jefferson · State v. Delarosa

2. “'[a] conviction of even the gravest offense can be based entirely on circumstantial evidence and the inferences fairly deducible therefrom. If an inference is a reasonable one, the jury has the right to make the inference.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. – State v. Lyman – · State v. Nesbitt

3. ““ ‘In the second step of the two-step prosecutorial misconduct analysis, the appellate court considers three factors to determine whether a new trial should be granted: (1) whether the misconduct is gross and flagrant; (2) whether the misconduct shows ill will on the prosecutor’s part; and (3) whether the evidence against the defendant is of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would likely have little weight in the minds of the jurors. None of these three factors is individually controlling. Before the third factor can ever override the first two factors, an appellate court must be able to say that the harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261 (inconsistent with substantial justice) and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) (conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the error had little, if any, likelihood of having changed the results of the trial) have been met.’ State v. Bryant, 285 Kan. 970 , Syl. ¶ 2, 179 P.3d 1122 (2008).” McCaslin, 291 Kan. at 715-16 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Grey · State v. Simmons