State v. Newcomb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In an alternative means case, where a single offense may be committed in more than one way, there must be jury unanimity as to guilt for the single crime charged. Unanimity is not required, however, as to the means by which the crime was committed so long as substantial evidence supports each alternative means.’ ” “ ‘Because jury unanimity is not required as to the means by which an alternative means crime is committed, unanimity instructions are not required in alternative means cases.’ Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. at 544 [, 285 P.3d 361 (2012)]. Nevertheless, the State must meet a ‘super-sufficiency of the evidence’ requirement, i.e., present sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find each means of committing the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. at 544 . If the State fails to present sufficient evidence to support each means, reversal is required. Rojas-Marceleno, 295 Kan. at 544 .” State v. Newcomb, 296 Kan. 1012, 1014 , 298 P.3d 285 (2013).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Charles · State v. Frierson

2. ““The fact that the penalty for certain categories of homicide may be less severe than the penalties for other, nonhomicide crimes does not automatically render the penalties for the nonhomicide crimes unconstitutional. There is no strict linear order of criminal activity that ranks all homicides as the most serious crimes and all nonhomicide crimes as less serious, with the corresponding penalties necessarily ranking in diminishing durations of imprisonment. [[Image here]] “Comparing the penalty under K.S.A. 21-4643(a)(l)(C) with the punishments imposed for other offenses in Kansas, we do not conclude that the penalty set out in Jessica’s Law is disproportionately harsh.” Woodard, 294 Kan. at 723-24 .”

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

3. ““[T]hat is not the only requirement before Newcomb can claim § 9 protection under the second Freeman prong. The more serious crime to which his crime of conviction is compared must be punished less severely,’ not exactly the same, as it was here. See Freeman, 223 Kan. at 367 . Accordingly, Newcomb’s argument fails.” Newcomb, 296 Kan. at 1020 .”

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