State v. Colston’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

80 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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In a multiple acts case, several acts are alleged and any one of them could constitute the crime charged. In order to ensure jury unanimity as to the specific act for which the defendant is charged, the trial court must either require the State to elect the particular criminal act upon which it will rely for the conviction or instruct the jury that all jurors must agree that the same underlying criminal act has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt." "This court will apply a three-part test to determine when a multiple acts situation has occurred such that the jury must agree on the same underlying criminal act. First, the court must determine if the case truly involves multiple acts, i.e. , whether the defendant's conduct was part of one act or represents multiple acts which are separate and distinct from each other. Second, the court must consider whether error occurred, i.e. , whether there was a failure by the State to elect an act or a failure by the trial court to instruct. Third, the court must determine whether the error is reversible." State v. Colston , 290 Kan. 952 , Syl. ¶¶ 1-2, 235 P.3d 1234 (2010).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ultreras · 46 Kan. App. 2d 656 - State v. Waldrup

2. ““This court has determined that acts are multiple acts if they are factually separate and distinct. Further, “ ‘[ijncidents are factually separate when independent criminal acts have occurred at different times or when a later criminal act is motivated by a ‘fresh impulse.’ ” ” State v. Kesselring, 279 Kan. 671, 683 , 112 P.3d 175 (2005) (quoting State v. Hill, 271 Kan. 929, 939 , 26 P.3d 1267 [2001]). In addition, this court has identified other factors for determining if there is unitary conduct in a multiple acts case. These factors include: ‘(1) whether the acts occur at or near the same time; (2) whether the acts occur at the same location; (3) whether there is a causal relationship between tire acts, in particular whether there was an intervening event; and (4) whether there is a fresh impulse motivating some of the conduct.’ State v. Schoonover, 281 Kan. 453, 507 , 133 P.3d 48 (2006).” State v. Colston, 290 Kan. 952, 962 , 235 P.3d 1234 (2010).”

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

3. ““Generally, tire exact date that an offense was allegedly committed is not an element of the crime. This court has held where a defendant is not misled or prejudiced in making his or her defense by the allegation of when the crime occurred, a conviction may properly follow upon sufficient proof that the crime was committed at any time within tire period of the statute of limitations.” State v. Colston, 290 Kan. 952, 963 , 235 P.3d 1234 (2010).”

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