State v. MacK’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A trial judge in passing on a motion for judgment of acquittal must determine whether upon the evidence, giving full play to the right of the jury to determine credibility, weigh the evidence, and draw justifiable inferences of fact therefrom, a reasonable mind, or rational trier of facts, might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Mack, 228 Kan. 83, 89 , 612 P.2d 158 (1980); State v. Tillery, 227 Kan. 342, 345 , 606 P.2d 1031 (1980); State v. Rodriquez, 226 Kan. 558, 564 , 601 P.2d 686 (1979).” 229 Kan. at 403 .”

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

2. ““For the statute to be applicable, the State must establish, and the sentencing court must find, that the firearm was an instrumentality of the crime. State v. DeCourcy, 224 Kan. 278, 281 , 580 P.2d 86 (1978). The State is not obligated to charge, or to prove during trial, that the defendant used a firearm in the commission of the offense. Whether a defendant used a firearm in the commission of an Article 34 offense is a matter to be determined by the trial judge at the time of sentencing. It need not be submitted to the jury. State v. McCarty, 224 Kan. 179, 180-81 , 578 P.2d 274 (1978); State v. Mullins, 223 Kan. 798, 800-01 , 577 P.2d 51 (1978). We emphasized in State v. Quick, 226 Kan. 308, 318-19 , 597 P.2d 1108 (1979), that the sentencing judge should make a finding which specifies who used the firearm. On appeal, the scope of review of sentencing under 21-4618 is limited to whether there was competent evidence to support a finding that the defendant used a firearm in perpetrating the crime. State v. Bryant, 227 Kan. 385, 388 , 607 P.2d 66 (1980); State v. Taylor, 225 Kan. 788, 795 , 594 P.2d 211 (1979).””

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

3. ““The appellant contends the trial court erred in refusing to give the reasonable doubt instruction approved by this court in State v. Wilkins, 215 Kan. 145, 153 , 523 P.2d 728 (1974). The trial court instructed the jury on reasonable doubt using PIK Crim. 52.02. Additional instructions defining reasonable doubt are unnecessary. State v. Ponds and Garrett, 218 Kan. 416, 421 , 543 P.2d 967 (1975). See PIK Crim. 52.04.””

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