State v. Ochs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘the error may be declared harmless where the party benefitting from the error proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e., where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.’ State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , Syl. ¶ 6, 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 1594 (2012). “Under the harmless error analysis defined in K.S.A. 60-261, the test is equally clear. The court ‘determinefs] if there is a reasonable probability that the error did or will affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record.’ [Citation omitted.] “Under both standards, the party benefiting from the error... bears the burden of demonstrating harmlessness. State v. Herbel, 296 Kan. 1101, 1110 , 299 P.3d 292 (2013). That burden is higher when the error is of constitutional magnitude. See Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1110 (’Clearly, the party benefiting from the constitutional error must meet a higher standard to show harmlessness than the standard required in nonconstitutional error.’).” Bridges, 306 P.3d at 260 .”

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

2. ““We have said that review of prosecutorial misconduct claims involves a two-step process. The court first decides whether the comments were outside the wide latitude a prosecutor is allowed, e.g., in discussing the evidence. If so, there was misconduct. Second, if misconduct is found, we have said the court must determine whether the improper comments prejudiced the jury and denied the defendant a fair trial. State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 857 , 281 P.3d 1112 (2012). “For years we have considered several factors in analyzing this second step: (1) whether the misconduct was gross and flagrant; (2) whether it was motivated by prosecutorial ill will; 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 has been individually controlling. Marshall, 294 Kan. at 857 .””

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

3. ““both the constitutional and nonconstitutional error clearly arise from the very same acts and omissions, we logically begin with our harmlessness analysis of the constitutional error.... [I]f we decide the constitutional error is not harmless and reverse the convictions, there is no point in analyzing whether the State met the lower standard for harmlessness under K.S.A. 60-261.” Bridges, 306 P.3d at 262 (citing Herbel, 296 Kan. at 1111 ).”

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