1 Kan. App. 2d 671 - State v. Becker’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the case at bar exactly the same conduct was the basis of two separate prosecutions. In the assault charge, the driving left of center was the threat or attempt to do bodily harm — the overt act under the particular circumstances. According to the state’s evidence, we do not have a situation where early in the chase and prior to the commission of the alleged assault the defendant drove his vehicle on the left half of the highway. Proof of the assault charge would have supported and included the traffic charge. Nothing was needed to be proven in the traffic count which was not necessary in the felony charge. The evidence in the latter would have supported conviction of the former. Thus, defendant could not be convicted of both charges and the latter prosecution must be voided.” p. 673.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brueninger · State v. Russell

2. ““ ‘(2) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for a different crime, or for the same crime based upon different facts, if such former prosecution: ‘(a) . . . was for a crime which involves the same conduct, unless each prosecution requires proof of a fact not required in the other prosecution. . . .’ (emphasis supplied)” p. 672.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Russell