State v. Ojeda’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We recognize the public interest lies not only in being safe from future crimes, but to some extent in seeing that punishment is imposed for crimes committed. This interest is particularly strong in crimes involving tragic or senseless acts. We believe that the public interest in punishing a serious offense, one involving unprovoked [injury] upon a human being causing his death, amply justifies the [three]-year minimum sentence of confinement imposed in this case. Additionally, the term of confinement ordered furthers the substantive goal of deterrence—specific deterrence. The record reveals that ... at the time of sentencing [Reyes expressed the desire to have two more children]. The sentence thus may be viewed as reflecting society’s interest in protecting other infants from the type of dangerous acts which the jury found [Reyes] to have committed upon [Phabian].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reyes

2. “[Wjhether there was substantial evidence upon which any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Filson 101 Idaho 381, 386 , 613 P.2d 938, 943 (1980); State v. Ojeda, 119 Idaho 862, 864 , 810 P.2d 1148, 1150 (Ct.App.1991). The jury is accorded the right to determine the credibility of witnesses, to weigh the evidence, and to draw all reasonable and justifiable inferences. Ojeda, 119 Idaho at 864 , 810 P.2d at 1150 ; State v. Fenley, 103 Idaho 199, 203-04 , 646 P.2d 441, 445-46 (Ct.App.1982). On appeal, the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the state. Id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Daniels

3. “We note initially, as we did in Ojeda , that [Although a sentencing court is required to consider the substantive criteria set forth in Toohill , there exists no corollary requirement that it make specific factual findings in support of the sentence imposed. Thus, in order to prevail on appeal, [Reyes] must establish that, in light of the governing criteria, [her] sentence of [three] years’ minimum confinement was excessive under any reasonable view of the facts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reyes