State v. Hooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A confession is not inadmissible merely because the person making it is a juvenile. The age of the juvenile, the length of the question, the juvenile’s eduction, the juvenile’s prior experience with the police, and the juvenile’s mental state are all facts to be considered in determining the voluntariness and admissibility of a juvenile’s confession into evidence.” “An adjudicated juvenile’s request to call his father, prior to interrogation by custodial officers, does not per se constitute an assertion of his right against self-incrimination.” “The constitution and K.S.A. 38-839 afford no right to the presence of anyone other than a lawyer trained to protect the legal rights of those accused. While the presence or absence of a parent or responsible adult during the interrogation of a juvenile suspect may be a factor affecting the voluntariness of a confession, there is no constitutional right to the presence of a parent.” “A juvenile is capable of making an admissible voluntary confession, and there is no constitutional requirement that he have the advice of a parent, guardian or other adult.” “Whether a confession was freely and voluntarily given is based upon a consideration of the totality of the circumstances, and where there is a genuine conflict in the evidence great reliance must be placed upon the finder of fact.””

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

2. ““(1) The seriousness of the alleged offense and whether the protection of the community requires prosecution as an adult; (2) whether the alleged offense was committed in an aggressive, violent, premeditated or willful manner; (3) whether the offense was against a person or against property, greater weight being given to offenses against persons, especially if personal injury resulted; (4) the number of alleged offenses unadjudicated and pending against the respondent; (5) the previous history of the respondent, including whether the respondent had been adjudicated a delinquent or miscreant under the Kansas juvenile code or a juvenile offender under this code and, if so, whether the offenses were against persons or property, and any other previous history of antisocial behavior or patterns of physical violence; (6) the sophistication or maturity of the respondent as determined by consideration of the respondent’s home, environment, emotional attitude, pattern of living or desire to be treated as an adult; (7) whether there are facilities or programs available to the court which are likely to rehabilitate the respondent prior to the expiration of the court’s jurisdiction under this code; and (8) whether the interests of the respondent or of the community would be better served by criminal prosecution.” K.S.A. 38-1636(e).”

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

3. ““In State v. Young, 220 Kan. 541 , 552 P.2d 905 (1976), we adopted a totality of the circumstances test for determining whether the confession of a juvenile is admissible, and held: ‘A confession is not inadmissible merely because the person making it is a juvenile. The age of the juvenile, the length of the questioning, the juvenile’s education, the juvenile’s prior experience with the police, and the juvenile’s mental state are all factors to be considered in determining the voluntariness and admissibility of a juvenile’s confession into evidence.’ Syl. ¶ 2.”

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