State v. Prine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

72 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is at least ironic that propensity evidence can be part of the support for an indefinite civil commitment, but cannot be part of the support for an initial criminal conviction in a child sex crime prosecution. "Of course, the legislature, rather than this court, is the body charged with study, consideration, and adoption of any statutory change that might make K.S.A. 60-455 more workable in such cases, without doing unconstitutional violence to the rights of criminal defendants. It may be time for the legislature to examine the advisability of amendment to K.S.A. 60-455 or some other appropriate adjustment to the statutory scheme." 287 Kan. at 737 , 200 P.3d 1 .”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Boysaw · State v. Boysaw

2. “"Subject to K.S.A. 60-447 evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove his or her disposition to commit crime or civil wrong as the basis for an inference that the person committed another crime or civil wrong on another specified occasion but, subject to K.S.A. 60-445 and 60-448, such evidence is admissible when relevant to prove some other material fact including motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Boysaw · State v. Boysaw

3. ““[T]his standard governs examination of whether particular evidence has probative value .... If a defendant’s prior bad act is so strikingly similar in pattern or so distinct in method of operation as to be a signature, then it is probative of defendant’s plan in the case at bar. If it is not, then the evidence has no probative value on plan and the evidence is irrelevant if offered for that purpose. On appeal, we will review a district judge’s decision under the ‘signature’ standard for an abuse of discretion. [Citation omitted.]” 287 Kan. at 735 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Torres