State v. Akins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We first decide 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. Bridges, 297 Kan. 989, 1012 , 306 P.3d 244 (2013) (citing State v. Marshall, 294 Kan. 850, 856 , 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. No single factor controls the outcome of this inquiry. Bridges, 297 Kan. at 1012 (citing Marshall, 294 Kan. at 857 ).” State v. Akins, 298 Kan. 592, 599 , 315 P.3d 868 (2014).”

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

2. “"was not ameliorated by evidence which was so overwhelming that the misconduct could not have influenced the jury's decision. There was no physical evidence of [defendant's] guilt, and he consistently and steadfastly maintained that he was innocent. So the jury was charged with deciding the case based on the testimony of witnesses, making their credibility of paramount importance." 298 Kan. at 613 , 315 P.3d 868 .”

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

3. ““[T]he 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 fight 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).”

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