State v. Holt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The defendant acknowledges that the Kansas Legislature intended to allow conviction and punishment for both felony murder and the underlying felony, but he claims that die imposition of consecutive sentences for his convictions of first-degree murder and the underlying felonies violates the United States Constitution prohibition against double jeopardy. A violation of the prohibition against double jeopardy is a question of law, and this court’s review is de novo. “The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb for the same offense. The Clause is enforceable against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 23 L. Ed. 2d 656 , 89 S. Ct. 2072 (1969). Equivalent double jeopardy protection is found in Section 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. See State v. Cady, 254 Kan. 393, 396-97 , 867 P.2d 270 (1994). The Double Jeopardy Clause shields persons from ‘(1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, and (3) multiple punishments for the same offense.’ 254 Kan. at 396 . At issue here is the third protection, that against multiple punishments for the same offense. “The defendant acknowledges that it is the well-established law in Kansas that multiple convictions and punishments for both felony murder and the underlying felony ar”

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

2. ““(a) Any of the following felonies shall be deemed an inherently dangerous felony whether or not such felony is so distinct from the homicide alleged to be a violation of subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-3401, and amendments thereto, as not to be an ingredient of the homicide alleged to be a violation of subsection (b) of K.S.A. 21-3401, and amendments thereto.” K.S.A. 21-3436.”

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

3. “is a distinct legal theory from the doctrine of lesser included offenses”

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