State v. Caldwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““the situation when aggravated assault and aggravated battery fail[] to cover the act. Malicious and willful shooting at an occupied building or vehicle, but where the individual is not placed in immediate apprehension of bodily harm, is a class D felony. This is the same class of felony as aggravated assault and will cover the situation where aggravated assault would fail. The willful and malicious shooting at an occupied building or vehicle which results in bodily injury is a class C felony. This is the same class felony as aggravated batteiy and will cover those situations where the requisite intent to injure, required for battery, cannot be shown.” Report of Subcommittee, House Judiciary Committee on Drive-by Shooting (H.B. 2709), February 25, 1992.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 25 Kan. App. 2d 407 - State v. Taylor · State v. Farmer

2. ““It is clear to us that the Kansas Legislature intended that a person found guilty of discharging a firearm at an occupied building [or vehicle] be convicted of a felony whether or not the person or persons inside were put in immediate apprehension of bodily harm. The legislature intended to prohibit stacking offenses by convicting a defendant for both aggravated assault and discharging a firearm at an occupied building, [or vehicle] where the offenses involve the same victim and the same criminal act. Since both offenses cany the same severity level and both are person felonies, a defendant is not prejudiced by the State’s decision to pursue one charge rather than the other. “. . . Therefore, we discern no fault with the State’s evidence even if the evidence were construed to mean [the victim] was put in immediate apprehension of bodily harm.” 21 Kan. App. 2d at 472 .”

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

3. ““ “When reviewing challenges to jury instructions, the instructions are to be considered together and read as a whole without isolating any one instruction. If the instructions properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts in the case, and if the jury could not reasonably have been misled by them, then the instructions do not constitute reversible error although they may be in some small way erroneous.’ State v. Whitaker, 255 Kan. 118 . Syl. ¶ 3, 872 P.2d 278 (1994).” State v. Caldwell, 21 Kan. App. 2d 466, 474 , 901 P.2d 35 , rev. denied 258 Kan. 860 (1995).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 22 Kan. App. 2d 572 - State v. Peterson