11 Kan. App. 2d 76 - State v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one crime under the laws of this state, the defendant may be prosecuted for each of such crimes. Each of such crimes may be alleged as a separate count in a single complaint, information or indictment. “(2) Upon prosecution for a crime, the defendant may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included crime, but not both. An included crime may be any of the following: (a) A lesser degree of the same crime; (b) an attempt to commit the crime charged; (c) an attempt to commit a lesser degree of the crime charged; or (d) a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved.””

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

2. ““Defendant first contends in this appeal that the charges in Count I of ‘making’ the check and Count II of ‘issuing’ the check are multiplicitous because they are based on one check and that he cannot be punished twice for one offense of forgery. “Multiplicity is the charging of two or more counts where only a single criminal act is involved. State v. Dorsey, 224 Kan. 152 , 578 P.2d 261 (1978); State v. Garnes, 229 Kan. 368, 372 , 624 P.2d 448 (1981). K.S.A. 1984 Supp. 21-3107(1) statutorily allows charging a criminal defendant with multiple violations arising from a single transaction ‘[wjhen the same conduct . . . may establish the commission of more than one crime under the laws of this state . . . .’ “The test to determine whether the charges are in fact multiplicitous is whether one offense requires proof of an element not necessary to prove the other offense. If so, the charges stemming from a single act are not multiplicitous. See State v. Freeman, 236 Kan. 274, 281 , 689 P.2d 885 (1984); State v. Chears, 231 Kan. 161 , 643 P.2d 154 (1982); State v. James, 216 Kan. 235 , 531 P.2d 70 (1975). “In this case, defendant was correcdy charged with violating subsection (l)(a) of K.S.A. 1984 Supp. 21-3710, which defines the crime of forgeiy as making, altering or endorsing any written instrument fictitiously or without authority. In Count II, defendant was charged with knowingly issuing or delivering a forged instrument in violation of subsection (l)(b) of the forgery statute. ”

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

3. ““The record in this case discloses that the State had not been able to obtain documentary evidence of a prior federal felony conviction for interstate transportation of forged securities at the time of sentencing. The trial court did not want to grant a continuance. Therefore, the State put Mr. Witham, the presentence investigator assigned to this case, on the stand to testify regarding the defendant’s previous felony convictions. He testified to the effect that defendant admitted to 7 or 8 prior convictions, including the federal felony for forged securities which the State had given defendant notice it would use to impose the Habitual Criminal Act. There was no evidence to confirm this testimony nor was there any showing that the defendant had been represented by counsel at the time of the federal conviction. “However, we are constrained to hold that Mr. Witham’s testimony did not constitute sufficient competent evidence under K.S.A. 1984 Supp. 21-4504(e) and the authorities cited above. A presentence investigation report is prepared to help the trial judge determine an appropriate sentence. It is not prepared to discover prior convictions for enhancement purposes. Here, neither the defendant nor his counsel admitted in court to any prior felony convictions. It should also be noted that there was no evidence of any kind produced to corroborate the statement made to the court services office and there was no affirmative showing that defendant had been represented by counsel ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 16 Kan. App. 2d 743 - State v. Maggard