42 Kan. App. 2d 166 - State v. Pruitt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Here, Pruitt, however, objected to the giving of the deadlocked jury instruction. As a result, the clearly erroneous standard applied in Salts is inapplicable to this case. We must consider whether the Allen instruction properly and fairly stated the law as applied to the facts of the case and whether the instruction could have misled the jury. Because the Allen instruction was misleading and it contradicted another jury instruction, Pruitt's conviction must be reversed. See State v. Page, 41 Kan. App.2d 584, 586-87 , 203 P.3d 1277 (2009). (`Given the fact our Supreme Court has held the deadlocked jury instruction misleading and the real possibility the jury in this case was at least influenced by the erroneous language in the jury instruction, this defendant's convictions must be reversed.')." 42 Kan.App.2d at 175, 211 P.3d 166 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Kan. App. 2d 878 - State v. Baughman

2. “Your only concern in this case is determining whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. The disposition of the case thereafter is a matter for determination by the Court.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Kan. App. 2d 878 - State v. Baughman

3. “could not have reasonably misled the jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 44 Kan. App. 2d 878 - State v. Baughman