State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'the totality of circumstances substantially prejudiced a defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial based on cumulative error.'”

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

2. ““A claim of prosecutorial misconduct based on comments made during closing argument will be reviewed on appeal, even where there was no contemporaneous objection. State v. King, 288 Kan. 333, 349 , 204 P.3d 585 (2009). Such review involves a two-step process. First, we decide whether the comments were outside the wide latitude that a prosecutor is allowed in discussing the evidence. State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 856 , 281 P.3d 1112 (2012). If the comments were improper and constituted misconduct, we then determine whether the comments prejudiced the jury against the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial. 294 Kan. at 856 . Under this second step, we consider three factors. First, was the misconduct gross and flagrant? Second, was the misconduct motivated by ill will? Third, was the evidence of such a direct and overwhelming nature that the misconduct would have had little weight in the mind of a juror? See State v. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989 , Syl. ¶ 15, 306 P.3d 244 (2013). None of the three factors is individually controlling. State v. Adams, 292 Kan. 60, 66 , 253 P.3d 5 (2011). “Finally, in considering the third factor, this court requires that the prosecu-torial misconduct error meets tire ‘dual standard’ of both constitutional and statutory harmlessness in order to uphold a conviction. State v. Tosh, 278 Kan. 83, 97 , 91 P.3d 1204 (2004). The State bears the burden of demonstrating harmlessness under both standards. However, if the State meets the higher constitut”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Moyer · 58 Kan. App. 2d 599 - State v. Brown

3. “A jury is vested with the duty to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty of each charged crime; and in fulfilling that duty, it must apply the law to the facts as it finds them. Therefore, the failure to properly instruct a jury on the essential elements of the crime charged typically prevents the jury from rendering a proper verdict. Moreover, a defendant's right to have the jury properly instructed on all essential elements of the charged crime is rooted in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees a defendant's right to trial by jury. [Citations omitted.]”

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