State v. Motor’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably State v. Rueckert (1977), State v. Smolin (1976)
26 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Cree v. Goldstein · State v. Ritson · State v. Blocker · State v. Taylor · State v. Price
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendant further contends the information as filed and upon which the case was tried did not state the offense specifically enough to enable the defendant to prepare his defense. “The defendant would appear to contend the information should have charged him with aiding and abetting the burglary rather than with the commission of the substantive offense. He made no objection before proceeding to trial. He made no attack on the information prior to his conviction. He filed no motion for a bill of particulars as authorized by K.S.A. 1973 Supp. 22-3201. He is hardly in a position to complain at this stage of the proceedings. (State v. Cory, 211 Kan. 528 , 506 P.2d 1115 .) “Moreover, the defendant’s contention is not found under the substantive law. K.S.A. 21-3205(1) reads: ‘A person is criminally responsible for a crime committed by another if he intentionally aid, abets, advises, hires, counsels or procures the other to commit the crime.’ “This subsection of the revised Kansas Criminal Code took the place of K.S.A. 62-1016 which read: [‘]Any person who counsels, aids or abets in the commission of any offense may be charged, tried and convicted in the same manner as if he were a principal.’ “The court is of the opinion there is little, if any, difference in the meaning of the language used in the two sections. In considering the latter section, we held in State v. Ogden, 210 Kan. 510 , 502 P.2d 654 : ‘One who counsels, aid or abets in the commission of any offense may be ch”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ralston v. State““The prosecuting attorney shall endorse the names of all witnesses known to said attorney upon the complaint, information and indictment at the time of filing the same. Said attorney may endorse thereon the names of other witnesses as may afterward become known to said attorney, at such times as the court may by rule or otherwise prescribe.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Cook
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.