Lewi v. State.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]bsent clear evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that a sentencing court will have considered all factors before imposing concurrent or consecutive terms of imprisonment under HRS § 706-606 [2014].”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Hema · State v. Abarcar

2. “[T]he dual purposes behind the requirement that reasons be stated for a court's imposition of a consecutive sentence are to '(1) identify the facts or circumstances within the range of statutory factors that the court considered, and (2) confirm for the defendant, the victim, the public, and the appellate court that the decision was deliberate, rational, and fair.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Thromman · State v. Peralto

3. “raises a question as to whether the circuit court adequately distinguished between the need for a 25-year consecutive sentence versus the 20-year sentence Lewi would have received under the presumption of concurrent sentencing.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Lewi · State v. Lavoie