State v. Payton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 46 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““You are instructed that under the law of the State of Kansas anyone who intentionally counsels, aids, abets or assists another or others in the commission of any crime(s), either by conspiring, counseling, advising, or assisting in any matter in the preparation or completion, is equally guilty with the one(s) actually committing the crime(s) without regard to the extent of their participation. “You are, therefore, instructed in this case that if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that any defendant(s) intentionally conspired, counseled, aided, abetted, advised or in any manner assisted others in the preparation or commission of the crime(s) charged in the information as elsewhere defined in these instructions, then that defendant(s) individually is guilty of such crime(s) as though he, by himself, without assistance, committed that crime(s).””

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

2. ““When conflicting facts are presented on the issue of voluntary intoxication, the question is usually for the jury. ... In State v. Wright, 221 Kan. 132, 138-139 , 557 P.2d 1267 (1976), this court reviewed a defendant’s evidence of drinking, but stated the ‘ [d] efendant’s own testimony negates any possibility that he was intoxicated to the extent that he was incapable of forming an intent to injure.’ . . . After examining the record in the instant case, we are satisfied the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct on voluntary intoxication. The evidence did not show the appellant was intoxicated to the extent that his ability to form the requisite intent was impaired.” 229 Kan. at 114 , 622 P.2d at 657 . (Citations omitted.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 116 Wis. 2d 477 - State v. Strege

3. ““To require the giving of an instruction on voluntary intoxication there must be some evidence of intoxication upon which a jury might find that a defendant’s mental faculties were impaired to the extent that he was incapable of forming the necessary specific intent required to commit the crime.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 18 Kan. App. 2d 502 - State v. Montano