State v. Remmert’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal case, the standard of review is whether, after reviewing all the evidence in a fight most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced a rational factfinder could, have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellate courts do not reweigh evidence, resolve evidentiary conflicts, or make witness credibility determinations. [Citation omitted.]” State v. Refninert, 298 Kan. 621, 629 , 316 P.3d 154 (2014).”

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

2. ““[M]itigating circumstances shall include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity. (2) The crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances. (3) The victim was an accomplice in the crime committed by another person, and the defendant’s participation was relatively minor. (4) The defendant acted under extreme distress or under the substantial domination of another person. (5) The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of die defendant’s conduct or to conform the defendant’s conduct to tire requirements of law was substantially impaired. (6) The age of the defendant at tire time of tire crime.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 50 Kan. App. 2d 1028 - State v. Grotton

3. “evidence that a person committed a crime or civil wrong on a specified occasion, is inadmissible to prove such person's 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.”

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