State v. Garza’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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(1) The nature of the offense and the character of the offender should be examined with particular regard to the degree of danger present to society; relevant to this inquiiy are the facts of the crime, the violent or nonviolent nature of the offense, the extent of culpability for the injury resulting, and the penological purposes of the prescribed punishment; “(2) A comparison of the punishment with punishment imposed in this jurisdiction for more serious offenses, and if among them are found more serious crimes punished less severely tiran the offense in question the challenged penalty is to that extent suspect; and “(3) A comparison of the penalty with punishments in other jurisdictions for die same offense.” 223 Kan. at 367 .”

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

2. ““Tlie first step when reviewing the exclusion of evidence is to determine whether the evidence is relevant. K.S.A. 60-401(b) defines relevant evidence as ‘evidence having any tendency in reason to prove any material fact.’ [Citation omitted.] This definition encompasses two components: whether the evidence is probative and whether it is material. [Citations omitted.] Probative evidence is evidence that ‘ “furnishes, establishes or contributes toward proof.” ’ [Citation omitted.] It is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. [Citation omitted.] Material evidence goes to a fact at issue that is significant under tire substantive law of the case. [Citation omitted.] The determination whether evidence is material is reviewed under a de novo standard. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Garza, 290 Kan. 1021, 1027 , 236 P.3d 501 (2010).”

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

3. “'a defendant cannot be convicted of both offenses when the crimes are charged in the alternative.'”

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