State v. Edgington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(2) A prosecution is barred if the defendant was formerly prosecuted for a different crime ... if such former prosecution: “(a) Resulted in either a conviction or an acquittal and the subsequent prosecution is for a crime or crimes of which evidence has been admitted in the former prosecution and which might have been included as other counts in the complaint, indictment or information filed in such former prosecution or upon which the state then might have elected to rely; [compulsory joinder rule] or was for a crime which involves the same conduct, unless such prosecution requires proof of a fact not required in the other prosecution, or the crime was not consummated when the former trial began . . . .” [identity of elements rule]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Kan. App. 2d 726 - In Re Berkowitz

2. ““Specifically, in the first trial, there was no evidence of the crime of perjury. The state did introduce facts, including physical evidence, which were common to each prosecution and which in the context of each prosecution became evidence supporting that particular offense. The checks which were introduced in the perjury trial were not evidence of perjury until the defendant’s testimony in the divorce proceeding was admitted. Similarly, in the misdemeanor trial, while the checks became evidence of a change of substantial interest, the checks were not evidence of another crime, i.e., perjury.” 223 Kan. at 417 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 Kan. App. 2d 726 - In Re Berkowitz

3. ““ ‘In criminal cases the ultimate test applied in determining the validity of a plea of former conviction or former acquittal is identity of offenses, and it is not necessarily decisive that the two offenses may have some material fact in common.’ State v. Ragan, 123 Kan. 399 , Syl. ¶ 2, 256 Pac. 169 [1927].” State v. Edgington, 223 Kan. 413, 416 , 573 P.2d 1059 (1978) (noting that the United States Supreme Court applied the test of whether each provision required proof of a fact the other did not, citing Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 ).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Schoonover