Stoker v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2014
16 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Commonwealth v. Benham · Montgomery v. Commonwealth · Preston v. Commonwealth · Boulder v. Commonwealth
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Another judge may have excused this juror for cause based on her answers, but the question is whether in failing to excuse this juror the trial court abused its discretion. The juror's answers, when viewed in their entirety, suggest the juror was being conscientious, not showing bias. Ultimately, the juror assured those present that she could listen to the evidence and render a fair and impartial verdict. We have recently recognized that the decision regarding juror "[i]mpartiality is not a technical conception ... limited to the juror's response to a `magic question,'" Montgomery, Sherman and Hudson v. Commonwealth, 819 S.W.2d 713 (Ky.1991). But here, when reviewed "in the totality of circumstances," the juror's responses were not such as to require disqualification. They do not compel the conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion. Stoker at 625-626 . (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“So far as the question of the sufficiency of the evidence offered ... to sustain the conviction [“for rape”] is concerned, we point to the fact that Kentucky follows the common law rule that the unsupported testimony of the prosecutrix, if not contradictory or incredible, or inherently improbable, may be sufficient to sustain a conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Instruction No._ You will further recommend in your verdict whether [any or all of] the punishments which you have fixed for the Defendant under Counts _ and _should be served concurrently (at the same time) or consecutively (one to begin after the completion of the other). Instruction No.__Verdict You must reach a separate verdict on each count described in these Instructions and a separate verdict on your recommendation as to whether [any or all of] the sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively. Form verdict; multiple sentence recommendation We recommend that the punishments fixed for the Defendant under Counts _ and _ above be served [as follows:] [[Image here]] [ (any or all) concurrently or consecutively]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.