State v. Pugh’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[¶ 18.] This Court has held that: In reviewing sentences for violations of the Eighth Amendment, we utilize the “grossly disproportionate” standard. We determine whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate by considering the conduct involved in the crime, relevant past conduct of the defendant and we give “utmost deference to the Legislature and the sentencing court.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. McKinney · Crutchfield v. Weber

2. “As for proportionality in this sentence, Pugh’s record shows a background of violence against women, escalating over time. His criminal history includes a 1988 aggravated kidnapping conviction in Texas, as well as arrests in South Dakota for simple assault (domestic violence), violation of a protection order, and possession of a firearm by a felon. Thus, the kidnapping and rape of M.H.L. were not isolated incidents, but only the latest in a series of acts, all indicating an unlikely prospect for rehabilitation. Pugh’s lack of remorse for his crimes against M.H.L. bodes only worse for his chances of reform. The Legislature sanctioned life imprisonment for particularly egregious conduct such as kidnapping, and the trial court found that Pugh was incorrigibly dangerous to others and incapable of rehabilitation. As we have remarked, “successful challenges to the proportionality of particular sentences [will be] exceedingly rare,” for this Court gives great deference to sentencing decisions. State v. Milk, 2000 SD 28, ¶ 10 , 607 N.W.2d 14, 18 . In Bonner , we held that if a sentence fails “to suggest gross disproportionality, our review ends.” Bonner at ¶ 17 . We find no inference of gross disproportionality in this sentence.”

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

3. “[c]hastity, as much as promiscuity, may characterize a person's sexual conduct, so that—other things being equal—evidence of either would be inadmissible. Other things are not equal however. The purpose of the rape shield law is not to bar people from flaunting their chastity or testifying to the loss of virginity, but to protect victims from the humiliation of having their unrelated sexual conduct paraded before juries. (citations omitted) Accordingly, this protection should be subject to voluntary waiver by a victim in order to prove an element of the case. Ibid.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 354 N.J. Super. 97 - State v. Burke