State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “‘When reviewing challenges to jury instructions, we are required to consider all the instructions together, read as a whole, and not to isolate any one instruction. If the instructions properly and fairly state the law as applied to the facts of the case and a juiy could not reasonably have been misled by them, the instructions do not constitute reversible error even if they are in some way erroneous. [Citation omitted.] “In a criminal action, a trial court must instruct the jury on the law applicable to the defendant’s theories for which there is supporting evidence. When considering the refusal of a trial court to give a specific instruction, the evidence must be viewed by the appellate court in the light most favorable to the party requesting the instruction. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Jackson, 270 Kan. 755, 760-61 , 19 P.3d 121 (2001).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 30 Kan. App. 2d 70 - State v. Campbell · State v. Bradford

2. ““Mere association with the principals who actually commit the crime or mere presence in the vicinity of the crime is insufficient to establish guilt as an aider and abettor. State v. Green, 237 Kan. 146 , 697 P.2d 1305 (1985). This language from Green , however, may properly be refused as an additional instruction by the trial judge, since PIK 3d 54.05 clearly informs the jury that intentional acts by a defendant are necessary to sustain a conviction for aiding and abetting. State v. Hunter, 241 Kan. 629, 639 , 740 P.2d 559 (1987); State v. Scott, 250 Kan. 350, 361 , 827 P.2d 733 (1992); State v. Hind, 262 Kan. 21, 46 , 936 P.2d 1364 (1997); State v. Jackson, 270 Kan. 755 , 19 P.3d 121 (2001); State v. Pink, 270 Kan. 728 , 20 P.3d 31 (2001).” Comment, PIK Crim. 3d 54.05.”

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

3. ““A person who, either before or during its commission, intentionally and substantially aids or abets another to commit a crime with intent to promote or assist in its commission is criminally responsible for the crime committed. “Mere association with the principals who actually commit the crime or mere presence in the vicinity of the crime is insufficient to establish guilt as an aider and abettor. “To be guilty of aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime the Defendant must willfully and knowingly associate himself with the unlawful venture and willfully participate in it as he would in something he wishes to bring about or to make succeed.””

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