Gibbs v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) When multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a defendant for more than one (1) crime ... except that (c) The aggregate of consecutive indeterminate terms shall not exceed in maximum length the longest extended term which would be authorized by KRS 532.080 for the highest class of crime for which any of the sentences is imposed. In no event shall the aggregate of consecutive indeterminate terms exceed seventy (70) years. (emphasis added.)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McClanahan v. Commonwealth · Blackburn v. Commonwealth

2. “[In Gibbs ], Appellant’s act of taking Sarah Smith’s hand and placing it on his penis is required physical force and his intent was to cause the sexual contact between the two. Unlike the victim in Miller , Sarah Smith testified that Appellant forced her to touch his penis. Sarah Smith did not consent or contribute to the act of touching Appellant’s penis; it was the sole act of Appellant that caused Sarah Smith’s hand to be placed on Appellant’s penis. Although there was no duress or resistance on Sarah Smith’s part, forcible compulsion has no such requirement. It simply requires physical force or threat of physical force. Gibbs, 208 S.W.3d at 856-57.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Chames v. Commonwealth · Yates v. Commonwealth

3. “The hearing need not be complex, but the Commonwealth and the defendant must be given an opportunity to present evidence on the issue of competency and an opportunity to cross-examine the psychologist or psychiatrist who prepared the report. While better practice is to hold such a hearing prior to trial, a retrospective competency hearing is permissible when circumstances with respect to time and witness availability are adequate to arrive at an assessment that could be labeled as more than mere speculation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dorris v. Commonwealth