State v. Tutt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A prior conviction that enhances a sentence, but not the seriousness of the offense, is generally not regarded as an element of the offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Cook · State v. Mann

2. “Standing alone, a statutory minimum sentence is hot an “element” of the offense, and the United States Supreme Court has rejected the argument that the fact of a prior conviction must be found by a jury. Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 239-247 , 118 S.Ct. 1219 , 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). Almendarez-Torres’ “prior conviction” exception has been built into the' Sixth Amendment’s application of jury trial to sentence enhancements in subsequent United States Supreme Court cases (although each deals with upward departures from statutory maximum sentences as opposed to the application of statutory minimum sentences). Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000); Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 , 124 S.Ct. 2531 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). BothAp-prendi and Blakely state that the Al-mendarez-Torres rule requiring sentence-enhancing facts to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt or. admitted to by the defendant only applies to facts “other than the fact of a prior conviction.” Apprendi, 530 U.S. at-490, 120 S.Ct. 2348 ; Blakely , 542 U.S, at 301, 124 S.Ct. 2531 .”

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