State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably State v. Louthan (1999), State v. Ziemba (1984)
4 federal appellate · 75 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Burgett v. Texas · Baldasar v. Illinois · State v. Tweedy · State v. Orosco · State v. Voight
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[In an enhancement proceeding,] the burden remains with the State to prove the prior convictions. This cannot be done by proving a judgment which would have been invalid to support a sentence of imprisonment in the first instance. [Citation omitted.] Where a record is silent as to a defendant’s opportunity for counsel, we may not presume that such rights were respected. [Citations omitted.] A defendant’s objection to the introduction of a transcript of conviction which fails to show on its face that counsel was afforded or the right waived does not constitute a collateral attack on the former judgment. The objection should have been sustained.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[UJnless an accused has “the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him,” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 69 , 53 S.Ct. 55, 64 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), his conviction is not sufficiently reliable to support the severe sanction of imprisonment. Argersinger v. Hamlin, [ 407 U.S. 25 , 92 S. Ct. 2006 , 32 L. Ed. 2d 530 (1972)]. An uncounseled conviction does not become more reliable merely because the accused has been validly convicted of a subsequent offense. For this reason, a conviction which is invalid for purposes of imposing a sentence of imprisonment for the offense itself remains invalid for purposes of increasing a term of imprisonment for a subsequent conviction under a repeat-offender statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Reimers
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.