State v. Manning’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A sentence imposed within the statutory guidelines will not be disturbed on appeal if it is within the trial court’s discretion and not a result of partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive. State v. Turner, 252 Kan. 666 , Syl. ¶ 1, 847 P.2d 1286 (1993). When a reviewing court determines that no reasonable person would agree with the trial court’s decision, then an abuse of discretion will be found. State v. Griffin, 246 Kan. 320, 326 , 787 P.2d 701 (1990).” State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 9 , 891 P.2d 324 (1995). “ ‘Although K.S.A. 21-4601 states the objectives of the corrections system, it does not require the sentencing judge to specifically consider those objectives as the judge must the factors in K.S.A. 21-4606. State v. Webb, 242 Kan. 519 , Syl. ¶ 3. “ ‘The statutory factors which the judge shall take into consideration in determining the penalty to be imposed are enumerated in K.S.A. 21-4606. Where the sentence exceeds the minimum, the legislature intended that the sentencing judge place on the record a detailed statement of facts and factors the judge considered. Failure to do so does not always indicate the sentencing court abused its discretion. Each case is to be considered on its facts. See State v. McDonald, 250 Kan. at 82-83. “ ‘Although the appellate courts have upheld sentences where the factors considered by the sentencing judge are not specifically enumerated, the appellate courts have repeatedly stated the better practice is for the trial judge t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 21 Kan. App. 2d 597 - State v. Zuck

2. ““The defendant is charged with the crime of aggravated indecent liberties with a child. The defendant pleads not guilty. “To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: “1. That the defendant fondled or touched the person of [L.V.] in a lewd manner, with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child, himself or both; “2. That [L.V.] was a child under 14 years of age; and “3. That this act occurred between 1 and 20 August, 1997, in Geary County, Kansas. “Lewd fondling or touching may be defined as a fondling or touching in a manner which tends to undermine the morals of the child, which is so clearly offensive as to outrage the moral sense of a reasonable person, and which is done with the specific intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender or both. Lewd fondling or touching does not require contact with the sex organ of one or the other.””

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