State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““must be able to say that tire harmlessness tests of both K.S.A. 60-261. . . and Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , [22,] 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 , 87 S. Ct. 824 (1967) . . . , have been met.” [Citation omitted.]’ State v. McCaslin, 291 Kan. 697, 715-16 , 245 P.3d 1030 (2011). The basic test asks whether tire error affected the defendant’s substantial rights, meaning whether the error affected the outcome of the trial.” State v. Smith, 296 Kan. 111, 130 , 293 P.3d 669 (2012).”

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

2. “the defendant was not branded as one who committed a crime. The instruction states the accomplice witness is one who testifies he was involved in the commission of the crime 'with which the defendant is charged.' That is not prejudicial, particularly where the witness testifies she committed the crime and the defendant is innocent.”

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

3. “created a negative inference regarding the testimony of [other, nonaccomplice 13 witnesses] in this trial,”

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