State v. Schuette’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 concept of multiplicity in Kansas comes from two sources. The first is the traditional “common-law” multiplicity concept. This exists where the State attempts to use a single wrongful act as the basis for multiple charges and is based on the merger of the charges. State v. Garnes, 229 Kan. 368, 372 , 624 P.2d 448 (1981). This concept has been a part of Kansas law since at least our decision in State v. Colgate, 31 Kan. 511, 515 , 3 Pac. 346 (1884), wherein we stated: “[Ujpon general principles a single offense cannot be split into separate parts, and the supposed offender be prosecuted for each of such separate parts, although each part may of itself constitute a separate offense.” The test for whether the offenses merge and are, therefore, multiplicitous is whether each offense charged requires proof of a fact not required in proving the other; if so, then the offenses do not merge and are not multiplicitous. Garnes, 229 Kan. at 373 . Offenses also do not merge if they are committed separately and severally at different times and at different places. 229 Kan. at 373 .’ “The second source, or layer, of the multiplicity analysis formerly came by statute in K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(d). K.S.A. 21-3107(2)(d) defined an included offense as ‘a crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved’ and stated that a defendant could not be convicted of both the crime charged and the included offense. This statute was amended in 1998, and subsection (2)(d) was ehminated. L. 1998, ”

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

2. ““ ‘Multiplicity is the charging of a single offense in several counts of a complaint or information. The primary concern with multiplicity is that it creates the potential for multiple punishments for a single offense. [Citation omitted.] Such multiple punishments are prohibited by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and § 10 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. [Citations omitted.]’ ” State v. Schuette, 273 Kan. 593, 600 , 44 P.3d 459 (2002) (quoting State v. Garcia, 272 Kan. 140, 143-44 , 32 P.3d 188 [2001]).”

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

3. “'there is no possibility of a conscious misrepresentation.'”

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