State v. Pennington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 30 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. ““If, from the totality of the evidence, a jury reasonably could conclude that the defendant aided and abetted another in the commission of the crime, then it is appropriate to instruct the jury on aiding and abetting. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Pennington, 254 Kan. 757, 764 , 869 P.2d 624 (1994).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Green · 32 Kan. App. 2d 82 - State v. Percival

2. ““The defendant next claims that the trial court erred in failing to instruct die jury that it must not draw inferences from the defendant’s failure to testify. The court instructed the jury in accordance widi PIK Crim. 3d 52.13 [which at the time read]: ‘You should not consider die fact that the defendant did not testify in arriving at your verdict.’ The defendant requested that ‘should’ be replaced by ‘must’; the trial court declined die requested modification. “In support of his contention that the trial court’s failure to give the requested instruction was reversible error, the defendant cites Bruno v. United States, 308 U.S. 287 , 84 L. Ed. 257 , 60 S. Ct. 198 (1939), for die proposition diat a defendant has a right to have the jury instructed that it must not consider a defendant’s failure to testify. Bruno does not dictate such a result. . . . Bruno does not require the mandatory ‘shall’ language, but did require that the substance of the defendant’s requested instruction should have been given. “We hold that PIK Crim. 3d 52.13 provides sufficient direction for the jury in its consideration of the defendant’s failure to testify, that it ‘properly and fairly state[s] the law as applied to the facts in the case,’ and that the jury could not reasonably have been misled by the instructions. [Citation omitted.] We further hold that the better practice would be for the trial judge in the context of this instruction to use the stronger term ‘must’ instead of the term ‘should.’”

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

3. ““The State need not charge aiding and abetting in the charging document in order to pursue an aiding and abetting theory at trial. If, from die totality of die evidence, a jury reasonably could conclude that die defendant aided and abetted anodier in die commission of the crime, then it is appropriate to instruct the jury on aiding and abetting.””

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