6 Kan. App. 2d 688 - State v. Puckett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 102 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[Although ordinarily an appellate court will not consider an issue which has not been raised in the trial court or which has not been raised by the parties on appeal, the court does have the power to do so in exceptional circumstances, where consideration of the new issue is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent a denial of fundamental rights.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Frazier · City of Wichita v. Trotter

2. ““The problem with the fraud instructions, exemplified by number 7, involves the first paragraph of each of the alternative portions of the instruction. Obviously, since this instruction was in the alternative, the jury could have found the defendant guilty on the first portion, or the second portion or the final portion of those instructions. That portion of the instruction preceding the first ‘OR’ is faulty for the following specific reason. Such instruction means to us that the jury was told that if it found the defendant did not reveal the facts of the carried interests that he was guilty of a scheme to defraud the investors. This would violate the right of the defendant to have the jury find that even though there was a failure to reveal the fact of the carried interests, such failure was not part of a scheme to defraud. Similarly under alternatives two and three of the instructions, the first paragraphs also instruct the jury that if they found the defendant did not reveal the facts of the carried interests that defendant was guilty of failure to disclose a material fact. The hotly contested issue in this case was whether the failure to disclose the fact of the carried interests was a failure to disclose a material fact. The trial judge specifically held that in view of the disputed evidence whether a carried interest was material was an issue for the jury. Yet the instructions take the issue of materiality from the jury and leave them only the issue of whether the defen”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 Kan. App. 2d 734 - State v. Ribadeneira

3. ““Furthermore, issues not raised at the trial level can be reviewed under certain circumstances even though not considered by the trial court. “ ‘As a general rule, a reviewing court will consider only those issues on which the parties have relied in trying their case, but exceptions exist where the newly asserted issue involves only a legal question arising on proved or admitted facts which will be finally determinative of the case, or where consideration is necessary to serve the ends of justice or to prevent a denial of fundamental rights.’ Pierce v. Board of County Commissioners, 200 Kan. 74 , Syl. ¶ 3, 434 P.2d 858 (1967); Holmquist v. D-V, Inc., 1 Kan. App. 2d 291, 299, 563 P.2d 1112 (1977). “Prior to January, 1977, there was a special rule in Kansas which stated in part; ‘[N]o issue, other than an issue going to the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter of the litigation, may be briefed or will be considered on the appeal unless included in the statement of points.’ Rule No. 6(d) ( 214 Kan. xxiii ). See also State v. Johnson, 219 Kan. 847 , 549 P.2d 1370 (1976). “Effective January 10, 1977, the former Rules of Appellate Practice, numbers 1 through 18 were repealed and new rules of appellate procedure adopted. ( 220 Kan. xxix ). The new rules contained no comparable statement. However, as noted above, when the briefs did not raise an error such errors were not considered even after elimination of the court rule. “We find no Kansas cases which recognize an err”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 23 Kan. App. 2d 1016 - State v. Littrice