State v. Peppers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

83 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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[i]t is permissible for a prosecutor to argue that the evidence demonstrates a defendant’s guilt. For example, in [State v.] Mann, 274 Kan. [670, 688-89], 56 P.3d 212 [(2002)], we approved of a prosecutor’s statement near die beginning of closing argument that ‘[t]he [S]tate believes that [the victim] was killed widi premeditation intentionally, first degree, and this is why,’ which led into discussion of the evidence pointing to guilt. State v. Bennington, 293 Kan. 503, 530-31 , 264 P.3d 440 (2011) (prosecutor’s statement—‘That’s what he did’—did not exceed wide latitude afforded prosecutor—when the prosecutor ‘relating the facts’ to elements of crime). It is necessary, however, for a prosecutor to say something akin to ‘the evidence shows defendant’s guilt’ in order to make a statement merely directional and not an expression of the prosecutor’s personal opinion.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Burris · State v. Charles

2. ““Gang affiliation evidence is admissible if relevant. [Citations omitted.] Relevant evidence is defined by statute as evidence that is both material and probative. K.S.A. 60-401(b). We review whether evidence is material under a de novo standard. [Citation omitted.] Materiality addresses whether ‘ “a fact. . . has a legitimate and effective bearing on the decision of the case and is in dispute.’ ” State v. Reid, 286 Kan. 494, 505 , 186 P.3d 713 (2008) (quoting State v. Garcia, 285 Kan. 1, 14 , 169 P.3d 1069 [2007]). In other words, a fact is material if it is ‘ “significant under the substantive law of the case and properly at issue.’ ” Reid, 286 Kan. at 505 (quoting [State v.] Goodson, 281 Kan. 913 , 922, 135 P.3d 1116 [2006]). We review whether evidence is probative under an abuse of discretion standard. [Citation omitted.] Evidence is probative if it has ‘ “any tendency in reason to prove any material fact.” ’ State v. Houston, 289 Kan. 252, 261 , 213 P.3d 728 (2009) (quoting K.S.A. 60-401[b]). ‘For evidence of gang affiliation to be admissible there must be sufficient proof that gang membership or activity is related to the crime charged.’ State v. Tatum, 281 Kan. 1098 , Syl. ¶ 3, 135 P.3d 1088 (2006). Even if evidence is deemed relevant, it may be excluded if it is more prejudicial than probative. [Citation omitted,] We review a district judge’s weighing of prejudice and probative value for an abuse of discretion. [Citation omitted.]””

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

3. ““ ‘Generally, prosecutors cannot offer juries their personal opinions on the credibility of witnesses. State v. Stone, 291 Kan. 13, 19 , 237 P.3d 1229 (2010). We prohibit the prosecutor from expressing personal opinions on the credibility of a witness because such comments are “unsworn, unchecked testimony, not commentary on the evidence of the case.” State v. Pabst, 268 Kan. 501, 510 , 996 P.2d 321 (2000).’ State v. Duong, 292 Kan. 824, 830 , 257 P.3d 309 (2011). But mere reference to the terms of a witness’ plea agreement does not constitute misconduct. See State v. Kraus, 271 Kan. 810, 821-22 , 26 P.3d 636 (2001); State v. Edwards, 39 Kan. App. 2d 300, 310-11 , 179 P.3d 472 , rev. denied 286 Kan. 1181 (2008).” (Emphasis added.) State v. Peppers, 294 Kan. 377, 396-97 , 276 P.3d 148 (2012).”

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