Young v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) A person is guilty of unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree when he or she knowingly induces, assists, or causes a minor to engage in: (a) Illegal sexual activity; or (b) Illegal controlled substances activity other than activity involving marijuana, synthetic drugs, or sal-via, as defined in KRS 218A.010; Except those offenses involving minors in KRS Chapter 581 [pornography] and in KRS 529.100 [human trafficking] where that offense involves commercial sexual activity. (2) Unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree is a: [[Image here]] (b) Class B felony if the minor so used is less than sixteen (16) years old at the time the minor engages in the prohibited activity.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hillard v. Commonwealth · Combs v. Commonwealth

2. “anything used in the commission of a sexual act other than the person of the actor. " (Emphasis added.) We further note that the jury instruction on unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree did not include payment of a fee as an element of the offense but did include A.W.'s age, which is an element of that offense but is not an element of the offense of prostitution. It is, however, an element of the offense of promoting prostitution in the first degree, which, as noted supra, is specifically excluded from illegal sexual activity constituting unlawful transaction with a minor in the first degree. However, the conduct described by A.W. did violate KRS 510.130(1), which provides that a person commits the offense of sexual abuse in the third degree when: (a) He subjects another person to sexual contact without the latter's consent. (b) In any prosecution under this section, it is a defense that: 1. The other person's lack of consent was due solely to incapacity to consent by reason of being less than sixteen (16) years old; and 2. The other person was at least fourteen (14) years old; and 3. The actor was less than five (5) years older than the other person. A.W. was fifteen years of age, thus statutorily incapable of consent, KRS 510.020(3)(a), and Appellant was more than five years older than A.W. Thus, the issue becomes whether "fisting”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hillard v. Commonwealth

3. “[Appellant] does claim it was reversible error to permit the Commonwealth to introduce a record of the Colorado Department of Corrections containing Appellant's description, mug shot, and fingerprint card. This record contains the notarized certificate of an employee of `Offender Records' that it is `a full, true and correct copy of the original in my custody.' Appellant claims this certification is insufficient to permit self-authentication under KRE 902(2), (4), or (11). However, a notarized document needs no further authentication. KRE 902(8); KRS 422.100.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Matthews v. Commonwealth