Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 933 P2D 1114 - Harris v. State

Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Ogden v. State (2001), Ryan v. State (1999)

31 state decisions

1601997200020102020decided

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 Lane v. Peterson · Milanovich v. United States · United States v. Gaddis · Mack v. United States · United States v. Morris

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

  1. “will not find reversible error in the jury instructions as long as the instructions correctly state the law and the entire set of instructions sufficiently covers the issues which were presented at the trial.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he trial judge must “‘be careful and cautious and not comment on the evidence.’ ” Phillips v. State, 597 P.2d 456, 458 (Wyo.1979) (quoting Peterson v. McMicken (Nelson’s Estate), 72 Wyo. 444, 499 , 266 P.2d 238, 261 (1954)). In a trial before a jury, the trial judge must abstain from expressing or indicating, by word, deed, or otherwise, his personal feelings on the weight or quality of the evidence. Id. Comments or expressions of opinion on the evidence which have the tendency to indicate bias on the trial judge’s part are regarded as being an infringement on the jury’s duties and are prejudicial to the defendant. Id.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A verdict is not valid and final until the deliberations are over, the result is announced in open court, and no dissent by a juror is registered. Before the verdict is recorded, the jury must be polled at the request of any party or on the court's own motion. The purpose of this procedure, required by Rule 31(d), is to ascertain with .- certainty that each of the jurors approves of the verdict as returned, and that no one has been coerced or induced to agree to a verdict to which he has not fully assented. It is reversible error to deny the defendant a reasonable opportunity to have the jury polled. The defendant must make a seasonable demand, however, or he will be held to have waived a poll. The court can always poll the jury on its own motion. . The procedure for a poll applies to not guilty verdicts just as it does to guilty verdicts. Until the rule was amended in 1998, it had been silent on how a jury poll was to be conducted and it was thought this was within the discretion of the court. There had been general agreement that it is better that the jurors be polled individually rather than collectively, and the rule was amended to require this method. 4 Although it is not the purpose of polling the jury to invite each juror to reconsider his decision, a juror is clearly entitled to change his mind when polled about a verdict to which he had agreed in the jury room. If upon the poll the jury is not unanimous it may be directed to retire for further deliberations or it may”
    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.