State v. Engelhardt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 183 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 191 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Motive supplies the jury with some degree of explanation, responding to a juror s natural tendency to wonder why a defendant behaved in the manner described by the State. Often it is a prominent feature of the State’s theory of its case. Motive malees some sense out of what otherwise appear to be completely senseless crimes.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Wells · State v. Roberts

2. ““A person who, either before or during its commission, intentionally aids, abets, advises, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit a crime with intent to promote or assist in its commission is criminally responsible for the crime committed regardless of the extent of the defendant’s participation, if any, in the actual commission of the crime. ‘In addition, a person is also liable for any other crime committed in pursuance of the intended crime if reasonably foreseeable by such person as a probable consequence of committing or attempting to commit the crime intended. “All participants in a crime are equally guilty without regard to the extent of their participation. However, 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 or 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.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Cofield · 579 F. App'x 671 - Engelhardt v. Heimgartner

3. ““ ‘ “Cumulative trial errors, when considered collectively, may be so great as to require reversal of the defendant’s conviction. The test is whether the totality of circumstances substantially prejudiced the defendant and denied the defendant a fair trial. No prejudicial error may be found upon this cumulative effect rule, however, if the evidence is overwhelming against the defendant.” [Citation omitted.]’ ” State v. Engelhardt, 280 Kan. 113, 140-41 , 119 P.3d 1148 (2005) (quoting State v. Plaskett, 271 Kan. 995, 1022 , 27 P.3d 890 [2001]).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Baker · State v. Scott-Herring