Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Vlictim impact evidence is that evidence relating to the victim's personal characteristics and to the physical, emotional, or social impact of a crime on its victim and the victim's family.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schreibvogel v. State · Sweet v. State

2. “But, because it is clear that Smith misunderstands Apprendi and Blakely, as the state explains, we shall briefly comment. In Apprendi, the Supreme Court noted that any fact which permits a trial court to exeeed the maximum penalty set out in the standard sentencing category for a given offense-and to therefore place a defendant in a more severe category-was much like an element of the offense, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court held that, "[olther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt." The Apprendi Court drew a distinction, however, between a trial court impermissibly finding facts which place a defendant in a more severe sentencing category, and its exercise of discretion in imposing a sentence within the range permitted by a sentencing category whose use is supported by a jury verdict. With respect to the latter, the Court emphasized that sentencing judges were still free to exercise their traditional discretion in considering various facts relating to the crime and the offender in imposing sentence within the prescribed statutory limits In Blakely, the Court did no more than apply Apprendi to a sentence which departed from the standard sentencing range for the charged offense based on the trial court's finding of a fact that justified the departure, but which was not admitted by the defendan”

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

3. “[olther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

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