State v. Sophophone’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably State v. Gleason (2004), State v. Beach (2003)
44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Redline · State v. Martin · State v. Vontress · State v. Turner · 178 Ill. 2d 462 - People v. Lowery
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘[C]riminal statutes must be strictly construed in favor of the accused. Any reasonable doubt about the meaning is decided in favor of anyone subjected to the criminal statute. The rule of strict construction, however, is subordinate to the rule that judicial interpretation must be reasonable and sensible to effect legislative design and intent.’ State v. Vega-Fuentes, 264 Kan. 10, 14 , 955 P.2d 1235 (1998).” State v. Sophophone, 270 Kan. 703, 712 , 19 P.3d 70 (2001).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny participant in a life-endangering felony is guilty of first degree murder when a life is taken in the course of committing or attempting to commit the felony, whether the death was intentional or accidental, or whether the participant directly caused it to occur. . . . [D]efendants are subject to the felony murder rule and it makes no difference that the killing was accidental.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Milo““The overriding fact which exists in our case is that neither [the defendant] nor any of his accomplices ‘killed’ anyone. The law enforcement officer acted lawfully in committing the act which resulted in the death of the co-felon. This does not fall within the language of the [aiding and abetting statute] since the officer committed no crime.” 270 Kan. at 712 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.