State v. Holt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Section] 46-18-202(1)(e), MCA, only allows the imposition of limitations “reasonably related to the objectives of rehabilitation and the protection of the victim and society.” Section 46-18-202(1)(e), MCA. Although this grant of sentencing authority is broad, it is not without limit. We hold that, in order to be “reasonably related to the objectives of rehabilitation and protection of the victim and society,” ... a sentencing limitation or condition must have ... some correlation or connection to the underlying offense for which the defendant is being sentenced. The “rehabilitation” and “protection of the victim and society” referenced in the sentencing statute must be read in the context of the charged offense. Section 46-18-202(1)(e), MCA. That is, the objectives are: (1) to rehabilitate the offender by imposing restitution or requiring treatment so that he or she does not repeat the same criminal conduct that gave rise to the sentence; and (2) to protect society from further similar conduct. (Emphasis in original.) In the instant case, the District Court was authorized to impose conditions designed to rehabilitate Ommundson’s drinking and driving and to protect society from future manifestations of such conduct. However, there is no evidence in this case that indecent exposure leads to increased occurrences of DUI, nor any evidence that treatment for indecent exposure will reduce the recurrence of alcohol abuse or lessen the incidence of DUI in society at large. In the pr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Ashby

2. “A showing of a mere probability that a defendant committed the offense charged is sufficient to establish probable cause to file an information. ... The District Judge is to use common sense to determine whether probable cause exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Renenger v. State

3. “It is not required that information in the affidavit supporting a charge, which might later be found inadmissible at trial, be excised before a determination of probable cause is made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Renenger v. State