State v. Faulkner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

162 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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In ruling on the admissibility of evidence of a prior conviction under 60-455, a district court must (1) determine it is relevant to prove one of the facts specified in the statute, (2) determine that fact is a disputed material fact — i.e. that it is substantially in issue and (3) balance the probative value of the prior conviction evidence against its tendency to prejudice the jury." (p. 155.)”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hanks · State v. Sanford

2. “"Possession and intent, like any element of a crime, may be proved by circumstantial evidence. [Citations omitted.] An excellent annotation—Conviction of Possession of Illicit Drugs Found in Automobile of which Defendant was not Sole Occupant, 57 A.L.R.3d 1319 [1974]—is instructive. The better view appears to be that when illicit drugs are found in an automobile containing more than one person, the defendant's mere presence in the vehicle, without more, would not sustain his conviction for possession. Other circumstances which have been held sufficiently incriminating to link a defendant with illicit drugs in a vehicle are his previous participation in the sale of drugs, his use of narcotics, his proximity to the area where drugs are found and the fact the drugs were found in plain view. While none of these circumstances, by itself, may be sufficient to support a conviction, taken together they provide a sufficient inference of knowing possession to support the verdict."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 Kan. App. 2d 754 - State v. Edwards · 27 Kan. App. 2d 754 - State v. Edward

3. ““The Uniform Controlled Substances Act, (K.S.A. 65-4101 et seq.) does not define ‘possession.’ (See K.S.A. 21-3102[1].) In State v. Neal, 215 Kan. 737 , 529 P.2d 114 , we defined ‘possession,’ citing PIK Criminal, Ch. 53.00, at p. 69 (1971): “ ‘Possession. Having control over a place or thing with knowledge of and the intent to have such control. State v. Metz, 107 Kan. 593 , 193 Pac. 177 (1920); City of Hutchinson v. Weems, 173 Kan. 452 , 249 P.2d 633 (1952). . . .’ “. . . Knowledge signifies awareness and is a requirement for‘possession.’ “ ‘Knowledge of the presence of a narcotic or dangerous drug as embraced within the concept of physical control with the intent to exercise such control is essential. . . .’ (28 C.J.S., Drugs and Narcotics Supplement, § 160 [1974], p. 235.)””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Flinchpaugh · State v. Rizal