State v. Hinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[ T]o assess a challenge to proportionality we first determine whether the sentence appears grossly disproportionate. To accomplish this, we consider the conduct involved, and any relevant past conduct, with utmost deference to the Legislature and the sentencing court. If these circumstances fail to suggest gross disproportionality, our review ends. If, on the other hand, the sentence appears grossly disproportionate, we may, in addition to examining the other Solem factors, conduct an intra- and inter-jurisdictional analysis to aid our comparison or remand to the circuit court to conduct such comparison before resentencing. We may also consider other relevant factors, such as the effect upon society of this type of offense.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Milk · State v. Garber

2. “the most serious combinations of the offense and the background of the offender " (emphasis added)). The U.S. Supreme Court has held, "Retribution is not proportional if the law's most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, by a substantial degree, by reason of youth and immaturity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Windom · State v. Guthmiller

3. “Recently this Court altered its approach to examination of sentences that purportedly violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. [Bonner, 1998 SD 30, ¶ 13 , 577 N.W.2d at 575 ]. No longer will the “shock the conscience” test be applicable to federal constitutional analysis under the Eighth Amendment. Id. Instead, proportionality review will be guided by “common principles” identified by Justice Kennedy in the Supreme [C]ourt’s latest pronouncement on this issue. Id. ¶¶ 15-16 (referring to Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 (1991)) (modifying [Sofero, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 ) ]. These principles are as follows: (1) reviewing courts must grant substantial deference to the legislature’s broad authority to determine the types and limits of punishment; (2) the Eighth Amendment does not mandate adoption of any one penological theory; (3) marked divergences “are the inevitable, often beneficial result of the federal structure”; and (4) proportionality review by federal courts should be informed by objective factors.”

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