State v. Tully’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In a cumulative error analysis, an appellate court aggregates all errors and, even though those errors would individually be considered harmless, analyzes whether their cumulative effect on the outcome of the trial is such that collectively they cannot be determined to be harmless. See State v. Colston , 290 Kan. 952 , 978-79, 235 P.3d 1234 (2010). In other words, was the defendant's right to a fair trial violated because the combined errors affected the outcome of the trial? In a cumulative error analysis, '[i]f any of the errors being aggregated are constitutional in nature, the cumulative error must be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.' United States v. Toles , 297 F.3d 959 , 972 (10th Cir. 2002). "In making the assessment of whether the cumulative errors are harmless error, an appellate court examines the errors in the context of the record as a whole considering how the district court dealt with the errors as they arose (including the efficacy, or lack of efficacy, of any remedial efforts); the nature and number of errors committed and their interrelationship, if any; and the strength of the evidence." State v. Tully , 293 Kan. 176 , 205-06, 262 P.3d 314 (2011).”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. King · State v. Smith-Parker

2. ““In a cumulative error analysis, an appellate court aggregates all errors and, even though those errors would individually be considered harmless, analyzes whedier their cumulative effect on the outcome of the trial is such that collectively drey cannot be determined to be harmless. [Citation omitted.] In otiier words, was the defendant’s right to a fair trial violated because die combined errors affected tire outcome of tire trial?” State v. Tully, 293 Kan. 176, 205 , 262 P.3d 314 (2011).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Charles · State v. WARRIOR

3. ““We recently clarified that under the harmless error standards of K.S.A. 60-261, K.S.A. 60-2105, and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , reh. denied 386 U.S. 987 (1967), the test is whether the error affected substantial rights, meaning whether die error affected the outcome of die trial. See Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶¶ 5-6. As we stated in Ward: ‘The degree of certainty by which the court must be persuaded that the error did not affect the outcome of the trial will vaiy depending on whether the error infringes upon a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. If it does not, die ... court should apply K.S.A. 60-261 and determine if there is a reasonable probability that the error did or will affect die outcome of die trial in light of the entire record. If the fundamental failure infringes upon a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, die .. . court should apply die constitutional harmless error standard defined in Chapman , in which case the error may be declared harmless where die party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect die outcome of the trial in light of die entire record, i.e., where diere is no reasonable possibility diat the error contributed to the verdict.’ Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6.” State v. Tally, 293 Kan. 176, 193-94 , 262 P.3d 314 (2011).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Burns