Kimble v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 33 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “not known at the time of the original trial and appeal or for some reason not available to the defendant at that time”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keller v. State · Bailey v. State

2. “Appellant claims that it was fundamental error to waive the reading of the final instructions and cites Purdy v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 282 , 369 N.E.2d 633 , for support. Purdy held that the defendant has the clear right to have the final instructions read aloud to the jury. In addition, appellant claims that he did not knowingly waive the reading of the final instructions. Defense counsel Mayer usually discussed waiving the reading of the final instructions with his clients. However, appellant states that Mayer testified at the hearing that he never discussed such a matter with appellant. Appellant misstates the record. The statement Mayer made, and which appellant repeats in the brief, was in response to a different question and did not deal with appellant Kimble at all. What Mayer said was while he could not remember specifically discussing the matter, appellant must have agreed with his decision to waive the reading. Mayer reached this conclusion because he always dis cussed these matters with his clients before making such a decision. Regardless, we find Rice v. State (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 680 , to be controlling. As found here, the defense counsel in Rice waived the reading of the final instructions. This Court held that since the decision was made before the clear right in Purdy was made known, defense counsel had done nothing wrong and the waiver did not amount to fundamental error. Id. 426 N.E.2d at 682 . The same rationale applies here. Purdy was handed down in D”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 583 F. Supp. 1072 - Kimble v. Duckworth

3. “A person who is convicted of a crime by a jury is sentenced by the judge. In many cases the judge has certain sentencing alternatives which may include probation, restitution, short sentences, rehabilitation programs, etc. In other cases the law requires the judge to sentence to a term of imprisonment that is either fixed by the law, or set by the jury- A person who is sentenced to imprisonment for less than life is entitled by law to a reduction of his time based upon a certain schedule and upon his behavior in the institution. Also he is given credit toward his sentence for time spent in jail on this charge. For these reasons it is possible that a person could serve considerably less than the stated sentence. On the other hand, it is also possible that a person could serve the full maximum. In either case it is determined by future events beyond our present knowledge or control. A person who is sentenced to imprisonment for life will remain in prison for life, unless the governor of this state commutes the sentence upon recommendation of the clemency commission. If this occurs, a person serving life may be paroled. On the other hand, there is no certainty that it will happen, or if it does, when it may happen. This also is determined by future events which are beyond our present knowledge or control. Therefore, in any case when arriving at your verdict, you should not consider or speculate as to the actual amount of time a person will serve. (R.Tr. 54).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 583 F. Supp. 1072 - Kimble v. Duckworth