22 Kan. App. 2d 837 - State v. Hawes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Departure cannot be based on prior uncharged activity; it violates the presumption of innocence. Even if a person admits to prior criminal activity, that admission is not equivalent to a guilty plea or a conviction. See State v. Bolton, 68 Wash. App. 211, 218-19 , 842 P.2d 989 (1992); see also State v. Keniston, 21 Kan. App. 2d 818, 822 , 908 P.2d 656 (1995) (sentencing court may use as reason to depart acts connected with the instant offense which could be an element of different offense). “[H]ere, defendant’s admission to purchasing ‘eight balls’ is uncharged conduct factually unrelated and extenuated from the crime for which he was charged. Defendant’s atypical involvement with the drug is not a substantial and competent reason for departure because it is a finding unsupported by substantial competent evidence connected to the current crime of conviction.” (Emphasis added.) 22 Kan. App. 2d at 841-42 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 25 Kan. App. 2d 1 - State v. Soler