People v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 2020
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Simmons v. United States · Manson v. Brathwaite · Colorado v. Connelly · Lisenba v. People of State of California · State v. Brown
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In People v. Harlan, 8 P.3d 448, 476 (Colo.2000), the supreme court recognized that the asportation element of second degree kidnapping is the seizing and carrying of a person from one place to another. This element, the court indicated, was satisfied when "the defendant moved [a] vie-tim from one place to another." People v. Harlan, supra, 8 P.3d at 476-77 ; see also People v. Metcalf, 926 P.2d 133, 137 (Colo.App.1996) ("the word 'seize' encompasses a mere taking"). The movement of a victim necessary to sustain a second degree kidnapping convietion-from one place to another-need not be substantial and may be incidental to another crime. People v. Bell, 809 P.2d 1026, 1033 (Colo.App.1990). Where ... the prosecution relies on insubstantial movement, a showing that the movement substantially increased the risk of harm to a victim suffices to support the conviction. See People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702, 706 (Colo.1990).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a factual cireumstance reviewing courts consider in some cases to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant moved the victim from one place to another.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“By withdrawing the reference to increased risk of harm because of a purported change in the law, the trial court may have caused the jury erroneously to believe that (1) increased risk of harm is no longer of any relevance to a second degree kidnapping charge and (2) any movement, however short, would in and of itself support a conviction for second degree kidnapping.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Rogers
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.