16 Kan. App. 2d 150 - State v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) When the samecúnduct 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.” K.S.A. 21-3107.”

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

2. ““Those charges which make up an integral part of another crime of which the defendant is convicted must be dismissed as multiplicitous. [Citation omitted.] The charging of a single offense as two or more separate crimes is improper because a single wrongful act should not be punished more than one time.” State v. Perry, 16 Kan. App. 2d 150, 152 , 823 P.2d 804 (1991). See State v. Brewer, 11 Kan. App. 2d 655, 662 , 732 P.2d 780 , rev. denied 241 Kan. 839 (1987).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 25 Kan. App. 2d 8 - State v. Morfitt

3. ““When a defendant is in nonexclusive possession of the premises on which illegal drugs are found, there must be other incriminating circumstances linking the defendant to the drugs. “Whether such circumstances are sufficient to give rise to an inference of possession is a question for the jury.’ State v. Anthony, 242 Kan. 493, 502 , 749 P.2d 37 (1988).” State v. Perry, 16 Kan. App. 2d 150, 156 , 823 P.2d 804 (1991).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 17 Kan. App. 2d 588 - State v. Geddes