State v. Groth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant has a due process right to be sentenced based on accurate information. State v. Johnson, 158 Wis. 2d 458, 468 , 463 N.W.2d 352 (Ct. App. 1990) (citing United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 447 (1972)). Whether a defendant has been denied the due process right to be sentenced based on accurate information is a "constitutional issue" presenting "a question of law which we review de novo." State v. Coolidge, 173 Wis. 2d 783, 789 , 496 N.W.2d 701 (Ct. App. 1993). A defendant who asks for resentencing because the court relied on inaccurate information must show both that the information was inaccurate and that the court relied on it. Id. The defendant carries the burden of proving both prongs — inaccuracy of the information and prejudicial reliance by the sentencing court — by clear and convincing evidence. Id. See also State v. Littrup, 164 Wis. 2d 120, 132 , 473 N.W.2d 164 (Ct. App. 1991). Once a defendant does so, the burden shifts to the State to show that the error was harmless. State v. Anderson, 222 Wis. 2d 403, 410-11 , 588 N.W.2d 75 (Ct. App. 1998). An error is harmless if there is no reasonable probability that it contributed to the outcome. Id. at 411 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Tiepelman · State v. Tiepelman

2. “to fully and fairly inform the jury of the rules of law applicable to the case and to assist the jury in making a reasonable analysis of the evidence.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 WI App 11 - Hunt v. CLARENDON NATIONAL INS. SERV., INC. · 278 Wis. 2d 439 - Hunt v. Clarendon National Insurance Service, Inc.

3. “Before you may find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove by evidence which satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that the following three elements were present. First, that the defendant was a therapist. Second, that the defendant had sexual contact with [the victim]. Third, that the sexual contact occurred during an ongoing therapist-patient relationship. The first element requires that the defendant was a therapist. Therapist means a person who performs psychotherapy. Psychotherapy means the use of learning, conditioning methods and emotional reactions in a professional relationship to assist persons to modify feelings, attitudes and behaviors which are intellectually, socially or emotionally maladjustive or ineffectual. It includes a member of the clergy. If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was a therapist, intentionally had sexual contact with [the victim], and that a therapist-patient relationship existed at the time of the sexual contact, you should find the defendant guilty. (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2005 WI App 162 - State v. Draughon