State v. Goering’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A sentence which is within the statutory limits as set forth by the legislature will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of special circumstances showing an abuse of discretion.” “The discretion in imposing sentences which is lodged with a court is not a boundless, but a judicial, discretion. It is a discretion limited to sound judgment to be exercised, not arbitrarily, but with regard to what is right and equitable under the circumstances and the law.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Johnson · State v. Wanttaja

2. “"Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on aiding and abetting, since the defendant was charged only as a principal...." "We determined this issue adversely to appellant's contention in State v. Smolin, 221 Kan. 149 , 557 P.2d 1241 (1976). We said: "`By statute and case law this jurisdiction has long held that 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.... Moreover, defendant's argument that she should have been charged in the information with aiding and abetting the aggravated battery rather than with the substantive offense has been rejected by this court.' (p. 152.) "In the case at hand, the defendant was properly charged as a principal, the evidence was sufficient to justify the instructions given, and the court properly instructed the jury on aiding and abetting." 225 Kan. at 758-59 .”

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

3. “"(1) In sentencing a person to prison, the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and the history, character and condition of the defendant, shall fix the lowest minimum term which, in the opinion of said court, is consistent with the public safety, the needs of the defendant, and the seriousness of the defendant's crime. "(2) The following factors, while not controlling, shall be considered by the court in fixing the minimum term of imprisonment: "( a ) The defendant's history of prior criminal activity; "( b ) The extent of the harm caused by the defendant's criminal conduct; "( c ) Whether the defendant intended that his criminal conduct would cause or threaten serious harm;”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 4 Kan. App. 2d 721 - Cochrane v. State