State v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

82 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(h) A person acts 'intentionally,' or 'with intent,' with respect to the nature of such person's conduct or to a result of such person's conduct when it is such person's conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result. All crimes defined in this code in which the mental culpability requirement is expressed as 'intentionally' or 'with intent' are specific intent crimes. A crime may provide that any other culpability requirement is a specific intent. "(i) A person acts 'knowingly,' or 'with knowledge,' with respect to the nature of such person's conduct or to circumstances surrounding such person's conduct when such person is aware of the nature of such person's conduct or that the circumstances exist. A person acts 'knowingly,' or 'with knowledge,' with respect to a result of such person's conduct when such person is aware that such person's conduct is reasonably certain to cause the result. All crimes defined in this code in which the mental culpability requirement is expressed as 'knowingly,' 'known,' or 'with knowledge' are general intent crimes.”

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

2. “'jury instructions as a whole, without focusing on any single instruction, in order to determine whether they properly and fairly state the applicable law or whether it is reasonable to conclude that they could have misled the jury.' [Citation omitted.]”

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

3. “"To determine if the prosecutor erred, 'the appellate court must decide whether the prosecutorial acts complained of fall outside the wide latitude afforded prosecutors to conduct the State's case and attempt to obtain a conviction in a manner that does not offend the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.' [ State v. ] Sherman , 305 Kan. [88, 109, 378 P.3d 1060 (2016) ]. If the court finds error, the burden falls on the State to demonstrate 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of will not or did not affect the outcome of the trial in light of the entire record, i.e. , where there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the verdict.' Sherman , 305 Kan. 88 , Syl. ¶ 8 [ 378 P.3d 1060 ]." State v. Butler , 307 Kan. 831 , 863, 416 P.3d 116 (2018).”

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