State v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Interpretation of a statute is a question of law. Under tire fundamental rule of statutory construction, the intent of the legislature governs when that intent can be ascertained from the statute. When a statute is plain and unambiguous, an appellate court must give effect to the intention of the legislature, rather than determine what die law should or should not be. The general rule is diat a criminal statute must be strictly construed in favor of die accused, which simply means that words are given their ordinary meaning. Any reasonable doubt about die meaning is decided in favor of anyone subjected to the criminal statute. This rule of strict construction, however, is subordinate to the rule diat judicial interpretation must be reasonable and sensible to effect legislative design and intent.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Crank · 34 Kan. App. 2d 857 - State v. Marino

2. “"While there was evidence suggesting that the defendants and Kilo were acting in concert, there was no evidence suggesting either gang involvement or gang motivation. The fact that there was evidence suggesting a conspiracy between young people to commit a crime does not make expert testimony regarding gangs relevant. The logic used to find relevancy is flawed. The State through the testimony of its gang expert advanced the premise that a person who belongs to a rap group is a member of a gang: Cox belongs to a rap group; therefore, Cox, the other three defendants, and Kilo are members of a gang." Cox, 258 Kan. at 565 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Winston · State v. Tatum

3. ““(b)(2) . . . [T]he following nonexclusive list of aggravating factors may be considered in determining whether substantial and compelling reasons for departure exist: (B) The defendant’s conduct during the commission of the current offense manifested excessive brutality to the victim in a manner not normally present in that offense.” (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Jackson · State v. Spain