State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 192 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 194 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'(1) the accused's mental condition; (2) the manner and duration of the interrogation; (3) the ability of the accused to communicate on request with the outside world; (4) the accused's age, intellect, and background; (5) the fairness of the officers in conducting the interrogation; and (6) the accused's fluency with the English language.' [Citation omitted.]”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Guein · State v. Stone

2. ““K.S.A. 22-3212(g) authorizes a broad array of sanctions for violations of discovery orders in criminal cases, including permitting the discoveiy or inspection of materials not previously disclosed, granting a continuance, prohibiting the party from introducing into evidence the material not disclosed, or entering such other order as [the court] deems just under the circumstances.’ By granting the option to impose sanctions the trial court deems ‘just,’ the provision grants discretion to determine the appropriate sanction. Consequently, a trial court’s denial of a motion seeking to exclude the testimony of a witness who violated a discovery order in a criminal case is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard if due process rights are not implicated by the violation.” State v. Johnson, 286 Kan. 824, 832 , 190 P.3d 207 (2008).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Auman · 46 Kan. App. 2d 17 - State v. Rollins

3. “... we conclude K.S.A. 21^4704(e)(l) grants a judge discretion to sentence a criminal defendant to any term within the presumptive grid block, as determined by the conviction and the defendant’s criminal history. The judge need not conduct any fact finding or state factors on the record. Consequently, the prescribed “ ‘statutory maximum’ ” sentence described by Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , is the upper term in the presumptive sentencing grid block. K.S.A. 21-4704(e)(l) is constitutional under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and does not violate the holdings in Apprendi or Cunningham.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 27 F. Supp. 3d 1173 - Harms v. Cline · 44 Kan. App. 2d 139 - State v. Jones