State v. Castleberry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Venue to prosecute an alleged drug dealer for the crime of unlawful use of a communication facility is proper in the county where a potential drug purchaser initiates a telephone call to the dealer, when the dealer knows the location of the caller and intentionally uses that telephone communication to facilitate the sale of drugs.” 301 Kan. 170 , Syl. ¶ 1.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Torres · 53 Kan. App. 2d 258 - State v. Torres

2. “are 'options within means,' rather than alternative means.”

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

3. “‘“Unanimity instruction errors are reviewed under a three-part framework. First, the reviewing court determines whether a multiple acts case is presented. The threshold question is whether jurors heard evidence of multiple acts, each of which could have supported conviction on a charged crime. State v. King, 299 Kan. 372 , Syl. ¶ 1, 323 P.3d, 1277 (2014). This is a question of law subject to unlim ited review. State v. Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. 11, 18 , 321 P.3d 1 (2014) (citing [State v.] Voyles, 284 Kan. [239,] 244, 160 P.3d 794 [2007]). If the case is a multiple acts case, the next question is whether error was committed. To avoid error, the State must have informed the jury which act to rely upon or the district court must have instructed the juiy to agree on the specific act for each charge. Failure to elect or instruct is error. Finally, the court determines whether the error was reversible or harmless. Santos-Vega, 299 Kan. at 18 . When, as here, tire defendant failed to request a unanimity instruction, the court applies the clearly erroneous standard provided in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 22-3414(3). See Voyles, 284 Kan. at 252-53 . Under this test, to find the error reversible: “‘“[a]n appellate court must be firmly convinced that under the facts the jury would have returned a different verdict if the unanimity instruction had been given. See State v. King, 297 Kan. 955, 979-80 , 305 P.3d 641 (2013); see also State v. Trujillo, 296 Kan. 625, 631 , 294 P.3d 281 (2013) (noting cour”

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