17 Kan. App. 2d 59 - State v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Where an accused is charged with separate and distinct crimes, although of a similar character, in two or more counts, a verdict of acquittal on one or more counts and of conviction on the others is not ordinarily or necessarily inconsistent, at least where each offense requires different evidence or involves factual variations. When accused is convicted on one count and is acquitted on another count, the test is whether the essential elements in the count wherein accused is acquitted are identical and necessary to proof of conviction on the guilty count. “Hence, where the elements of the two offenses are identical, a verdict of not guilty on one count is inconsistent with a verdict of guilty on the other count. Also, a verdict which acquits accused of a crime which includes acts necessary to the commission of another crime for which he is found guilty is inconsistent. However, acquittal under a count charging a major offense is not inconsistent with a conviction under a count charging a lesser included offense.” 23A C.J.S., Criminal Law § 1407, pp. 347-48.”

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

2. ““The Maryland Court of Appeals has concluded that inconsistent judgments in a criminal bench trial constitute reversible error. See Shell ... “The Michigan courts have rejected inconsistent judgments from a criminal bench trial. See People v. Williams, 99 Mich.App. 463, 465 , 297 N.W.2d 702 (1980).... “We conclude the better approach, under the facts presented here, where the same document was involved at the same time with the same parties, is to reject such an inconsistent verdict in a criminal bench trial. “The rationale for permitting inconsistent jury verdicts is simply not applicable to a bench trial under these circumstances .... A trial court is duty bound to apply the law in a nonarbitrary or [non-]capricious manner. A rule which would permit judgments which cannot be defended upon a logical basis would not enhance respect for the law, the courts, or the process. For an appellate court to uphold such a judgment, which on its face is illogical or arbitrary, would likely undermine respect for the courts.” [Alteration added.]”

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

3. ““The rationale for permitting inconsistent jury verdicts is simply not applicable to a bench trial under these circumstances. There can be no argument that the inconsistency is the result of compromise or any effort to achieve unanimity [among jurors] with a bench trial. A trial court is bound by fundamental principles of logic and has a duty to explain its decisions. Our system simply has more tolerance of inconsistencies where a jury is concerned. A trial court is duty bound to apply the law in a nonarbitrary or capricious manner. A rule which would permit judgments which cannot be defended upon a logical basis would not enhance respect for the law, the courts, or the process. For an appellate court to uphold such a judgment, which on its face is illogical or arbitrary, would likely undermine respect for the courts.” 17 Kan. App. 2d at 70 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McDonnell Ex Rel. McDonnell v. Music Stand, Inc.