State v. Angelo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As for the State's preservation duty, once the prosecution has notice of the petition, it must take necessary steps to ensure that 'biological material that was secured in connection with the case is preserved.' K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512(b)(2). This statutory language is important in two respects. First, like subsection (a), it focuses on 'biological material' specifically, rather than items of evidence generally. Second, the plain language requires the State to preserve only biological material that 'was secured in connection with the case.' K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512(b). The Legislature's use of the past-tense phrase, 'was secured,' makes clear the Legislature intended the State only preserve the 'biological material' it previously secured in its investigation or prosecution of the defendant. The plain language cannot be read to impose a duty on the State to call its crime scene investigators back in to examine or re-examine the physical evidence and determine whether any of those items contain biological material that the prosecution had not previously 'secured.' [Citations omitted.]”

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

2. “limits the scope of testing to 'any biological material' that is related to the case, in the actual or constructive possession of the State, and which was not previously tested or can be retested with new DNA techniques that are more accurate and probative. . . . Eligible petitioners may request DNA testing of biological material only. The plain language of subsection (a) does not contemplate or provide for testing of other physical evidence to determine whether biological material is present.”

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

3. “the scope of K.S.A. 2021 Supp. 21-2512 is not unlimited.”

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