State v. Belcher’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 56 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We apply [State v. Bike, 243 Kan. 365 , 757 P.2d 724 (1988),] to decide whether a particular crime is a lesser included offense of another crime. The Fike court admitted that language in K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(d), ‘a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved/ in terms of interpretation and application was ‘most troublesome.’ 243 Kan. at 367 . See Comment, Simplifying the Issue?: State v. Fike and the Doctrine of Lesser Included Offenses In Kansas, 45 Kan. L. Rev. 1463 (1997). The implementation of 21-3107(2)(d) and the application of Fike have judicially bedeviled trial and appellate courts for more than a decade. “Fike establishes a two-prong test in determining whether a particular crime is a lesser included offense. The first prong asks whether all of the statutory elements of the alleged lesser included crime are among the statutory elements required to prove the crime charged. The second prong instructs that, even if the elements of the lesser crime are not included in tire elements of the crime charged, the lesser crime might still be a lesser included crime if the factual allegations of die charging document and evidence at trial necessary to prove the crime charged would also necessarily prove the lesser crime. 243 Kan. 365 , Syl. ¶ 1. “The troublesome second prong of Fike, the prong at issue here, was eliminated by die legislature in 1998. See K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 21-3107(2); Molzen, Lesser Included Offenses: An End to the Second Prong of the Fike Test, 67 J”

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

2. ““(a) Aggravated indecent liberties with a child is: “(3) engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is under 14 years of age: “(A) Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender, or both; “(c) Except as provided further, aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony. . . . When the offender is 18 years of age or older, aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsection (a)(3) is an off-grid person felony.””

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