State v. Burns’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[E]ach act described within the definition of sodomy is separate and distinct from the other—the acts are factually different from one another, and one act is not inclusive of the others. Furthermore, each act is separated by a semicolon, which suggests that the legislature intended for each act to constitute a specific means of completing the general act of sodomy. “The actus reus of aggravated criminal sodomy under K.S.A. 21-3506(a)(l) is the defendant’s act of sodomy with a child who is under 14 years of age. The definition in K.S.A. 21-3501(2) creates three alternative means of committing sodomy, but within the second alternative means, the anal penetration charged here, the definition only presents ‘options within a means,’ that is, various factual circumstances that would prove die crime. “In the phrase ‘anal penetration, however slight, of a male or female by any body part or object,’ the legislature did not define two or more distinct actus reus for this ciime. The language on which Burns focuses, ‘by any body part or object,’ merely describes different factual circumstances by which a defendant might perpetrate the required anal penetration. The inclusion of ‘by any body part or object’ does not state material elements of sodomy but merely gives a full description of one of the means of committing sodomy; thus, it does not establish two alternative means of committing anal sodomy. Instead, die phrase only establishes one means of committing sodomy—anal penetration. ”

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

2. ““[The defendant] claims that sending an answer back to the jury rather than reading tire answer in tire presence of the defendant violates his constitutional right to be present at all critical stages of the trial, citing State v. Coyote, 268 Kan. 726, 732 , 1 P.3d 836 (2000). [The defendant’s] reliance on Coyote is misplaced. In Coyote , this court stated: ‘The trial court’s written response of “no” to the jury without more is error. A trial court, when confronted with a question submitted to it by a jury during deliberations is required to advise counsel, provide the parties with tire question, and give them an opportunity for input in the presence of the defendant. Thereafter, the court is required to respond in writing to the jury in the presence of the defendant. The court did not follow this procedure and its failure constitutes error.’ (Emphasis added.) Coyote, 268 Kan. at 732 : “Here, the trial court followed the procedure outlined by this court in Coyote . [The defendant] and his counsel were present and informed of tire jury’s question. The judge asked if there were any objections, and defense counsel proposed an alternative phrasing for the answer.” State v. Burns, 295 Kan. 951, 956 , 287 P.3d 261 (2012).”

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

3. ““The defendant is charged with aggravated criminal sodomy. The defendant pleads not guilty. “To establish this charge, each of the following claims must be proved: “1. That the defendant engaged in sodomy with a child, to wit: [K.S.], who was under 14 years of age; and “2. That the defendant was at least 18 years of age when the act of sodomy occurred; and “3. That the act occurred on or between the 4th day of April, 2008, and the 7th day of April, 2008, in Marion County, Kansas. “Sodomy means anal penetration, however slight, of a male or female by any body part or object.” (Emphasis added.)”

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