2 Kan. App. 2d 115 - State v. Kleber’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “. . Defendant argues that the mandatory provisions of K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 21-4618 may not be applied unless the question whether a firearm was used in the commission of the offense is determined in the affirmative by the trier of fact. It is undisputed that the jury was not instructed to determine, and did not determine, whether defendant committed the aggravated battery with the use of a firearm. . . . “The cases relied upon by defendant are not controlling since they concern statutes from other jurisdictions wherein an additional and enhanced sentence may be imposed upon a defendant who commits a crime with a firearm. Such statutes frequently provide that one who commits a felony with a firearm may receive a separate sentence for the use of the firearm in addition to whatever sentence may be imposed for the felony. In construing such statutes, it has been held that the question as to whether a firearm was used must be determined by the trier of fact before the additional sentence may be imposed. Jordan v. United States District Court for the Dist. of Col., 233 F.2d 362, 367 (D.C. Cir. 1956); People v. Najera, 105 Cal. Rptr. 345 , 8 Cal. 3d 504 , 503 P.2d 1353 (1972); State v. Blea, 84 N.M. 595 , 506 P.2d 339 (1973); Johnson v. State, 249 Ark. 208 , 458 S.W.2d 409 (1970). It has been said that such statutes define a new class of crimes by adding a new element, use of a firearm, and the existence of the new element requires an additional finding of fact. State v. Blea, supra, p”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Huf v. State · State v. Dague

2. “'[t]he elements are simple and certainly within common understanding and practice. The terms of the [aggravated battery] statute are not so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at their meaning and differ as to their application.' " 2015 WL 1122998 , at (quoting State v. Kleber , 2 Kan.App.2d 115 , 119, 575 P.2d 900 [1978] ). Similarly, in Rodriguez , the Court of Appeals held "disfigurement”

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

3. “The cases relied upon by defendant are not controlling since they concern statutes from other jurisdictions wherein an additional enhanced sentence may be imposed upon a defendant who commits a crime with a firearm. Such statutes frequently provide that one who commits a felony with a firearm may receive a separate sentence for the use of the firearm in addition to whatever sentence may be imposed for the felony. In construing such statutes, it has been held that the question as to whether a firearm was used must be determined by the trier of fact before the additional sentence may be imposed. It has been said that such statutes define a new class of crimes by adding a new element, use of a firearm, and the existence of the new element requires an additional finding of fact.”

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