– State v. Claerhout –’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'In evaluating the probative value of evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs, the district court should consider, among other factors: how clearly the prior act was proved; how probative the evidence is of the material fact sought to be proved; how seriously disputed the material fact is; and whether the government can obtain any less prejudicial evidence. In evaluating the possible prejudicial effect of evidence of other crimes or civil wrongs, the district court should consider, among other factors: the likelihood that such evidence will contribute to an improperly based jury verdict; the extent to which such evidence may distract the jury from the central issues of the trial; and how time consuming it will be to prove the prior conduct.'”

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

2. “conducted a generalized, superficial weighing of the probative value of the evidence against the potential for undue prejudice, making the conclusory determination that 'the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.'”

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

3. “This court follows a four-step progression when reviewing challenges to jury instructions: First, it considers the reviewability of the issue from both jurisdiction and preservation viewpoints, exercising an unlimited standard of review; next, it applies unlimited review to determine whether the instruction was legally appropriate; then, it determines whether there was sufficient evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant or the requesting party, that would have supported the instruction; and finally, if the district court erred, this court determines whether the error was harmless, 31 utilizing the test and degree of certainty set forth in State v. Ward, 292 Kan. 541 , 256 P.3d 801 (2011), cert. denied 565 U.S. 1221 (2012).”

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