State v. Underwood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

81 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This crime [unlawful possession of a firearm] is a status crime in that it is limited to drunkards, drug addicts and ex-felons. It is malum prohibitum. The possession of the firearm is prohibited because a firearm in the possession of a habitual drunkard, a narcotics addict or an ex-felon is against the public policy of the State as declared by the legislature. The possession of the firearm when viewed in the abstract is not inherently dangerous to human life. This is true because it seems unlikely that mere possession, which has been defined as dominion and control over an object, and not its use, could be undertaken in so dangerous a manner that the prohibited possession would result in murder in the first de gree. ... It appears quite impossible to find an intent in this collateral felony encompassing malice, deliberation and premeditation so as to transfer these elements to the homicide and relieve the prosecution from proof of the same. If diese elements are present in the use of the firearm they are not present in the possession of the firearm. They should then be proven as elements of premeditated first degree murder by reason of die malicious and deliberate use of die gun.” 228 Kan. at 303-04 .”

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

2. ““The felony murder rule has logic based on the theory of transferred intent. The malicious and premeditated intent of committing the inherently dangerous collateral felony is transferred to the homicide to supply the elements of malice and premeditation without further proof. Consistent with this thinking, most courts require that the collateral felony be inherently dangerous for the felony murder rule to be applicable.” 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law § 146, p. 210 (14th ed. 1979).”

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

3. ““In determining whether a particular collateral felony is inherently dangerous to human life so as to justify a charge of felony murder under K.S.A. 21-3401, the elements of the collateral felony should be viewed in the abstract, and the circumstances of the commission of the felony should not be considered in making the determination.” 228 Kan. 294 , Syl. ¶ 5 (emphasis supplied).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Fisher and Utley v. State · 8 Kan. App. 2d 684 - Smith v. State