2 Wash. App. 943 - State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably State v. Henderson (1979), 87 Wash. 2d 501 - Wood v. Morris (1976)
2 district · 31 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 Boykin v. Alabama · 68 Wash. 2d 601 - In RE WOODS v. Rhay · 64 Wash. 2d 503 - Tembruell v. City of Seattle · 43 Wash. 2d 358 - State v. Stacy · State v. Cimini
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every person convicted in this state of any crime of which fraud or intent to defraud is an element, or of petit larceny, or of any felony, who shall previously have been twice convicted, whether in this state or elsewhere, of any crime which under the laws of this state would amount to a felony, or who shall previously have been four times convicted, whether in this state or elsewhere, of petit larceny, or of any misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor of which fraud or intent to defraud is an element, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for life.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a prior deferred or suspended sentence cannot be utilized as a 'conviction' within the meaning of a statute enhancing the penalty for a second or subsequent conviction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Considering this question, it is to be borne in mind that the habitual criminal statute was passed in the hope of working a reformation of criminals, and, when that hope of reformation had passed, the increased punishment should be meted out, but only then. ... If that is the purpose of the act, then it should be so interpreted that the increased punishment should not be inflicted until an opportunity for reformation had been given. In many of the states it is expressly provided that the increased punishment shall apply only to offenses committed after the first conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.