Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2000 SD 154 - State v. Stahl

State v. Stahl’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Harmelin v. Michigan · State v. Bonner · State v. Chase in Winter · Stephens v. Board of Regents of University of Minnesota · State v. Kaiser

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 8 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.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[This Court takes] “an extremely deferential review of sentencing — generally, a sentence within the statutory maximum will not be disturbed on appeal.” [This Court] will not “engage in appellate re-sentencing, or [] ‘micromanage the administration of criminal justice’ in South Dakota, even when individual trial judges impose widely different punishments for the same offense.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “In his pre-sentence report statement, Stahl proclaimed his only crime was in caring too much and helping his fellow man and that he was innocent of the charges. He claimed he did not possess or distribute marijuana at any time, yet alone in a drug-free zone, despite the taped recordings documenting both drug sales and the jury's determination that he did commit these crimes.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.