State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ “We have recognized several instances where evidence of prior crimes or civil wrongs maybe introduced into evidence independent of K.S.A. 60-455, including evidence to establish the relationship or continuing course of conduct between a defendant and the victim. Evidence of prior acts of a similar nature between a defendant and a victim is admissible independent of K.S.A. 60-455 if the evidence is not offered for the purpose of proving distinct offenses but, rather, to establish the relationship of the parties, the existence of a continuing course of conduct between the parties, or to corroborate the testimony of the complaining witness as to the act charged.’ ” 21 Kan. App. 2d at 958 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Prosper · State v. Humphrey

2. ““The plan exception of K.S.A. 60-455 is ‘limited to evidence which shows some causal connection between two offenses, so that proof of the prior offense could be said to evidence a preexisting design, plan or scheme directed toward the doing of the offense charged.’ [Citation omitted.] . . . “. . . In the Comment to the PIK instruction on this issue, it is stated: ‘Plan refers to an antecedent mental condition that points to the doing of the offense or offenses planned. The purpose in showing a common scheme or plan is to establish, circumstantially, the commission of the act charged and the intent with which it was committed. Strictly speaking, the exception is limited to evidence which shows some causal connection between the two offenses, so that proof of the prior offense could be said to evidence a preexisting design, plan, or scheme directed toward the doing of the offense charged. Something more than the doing of similar acts is required to have probative value in showing plan, because the object is not merely to negate an innocent intent or show identical offenses, but to prove the existence of a definite project directed toward the doing of the offense charged.’ [Citations omitted.]” 247 Kan. at 545-46.”

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

3. ““(a) Criminal damage to property is by means other than by fire or explosive: (1) Intentionally injuring, damaging, mutilating, defacing, destroying, or substantially impairing the use of any property in which another has an interest without the consent of such other person. “(b)(1) Criminal damage to property is a severity level 7, nonperson felony if tire property is damaged to the extent of $25,000 or more. (2) Criminal damage to property is a severity level 9, nonperson felony if tire property is damaged to the extent of a least $500 but less than $25,000. (3) Criminal damage to property is a class B nonperson misdemeanor if the property damaged is of the value of less than $500 or is of the value of $500 or more and is damaged to the extent of less than $500.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 35 Kan. App. 2d 327 - State v. Carter