State v. McCloud’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A sentence imposed within the statutory guidelines will not be disturbed on appeal if it is within the trial court’s discretion and not a result of partiality, prejudice, oppression, or corrupt motive. [Citation omitted.] When a reviewing court determines that no reasonable person would agree with the trial court’s decision, tiren an abuse of discretion will be found. [Citation omitted.]” State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 9 , 891 P.2d 324 , cert. denied 516 U.S. 837 (1995j.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 47 Kan. App. 2d 396 - State v. Behrendt · State v. Goodwin

2. ““Section 9 of die Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights provides diat no cruel or unusual punishment can be inflicted by the State. Although the constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment is directed primarily at the kind of punishment imposed radier than its duration, the length of a particular sentence may be so excessive as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment.” “In determining whether the length of a sentence offends the constitutional prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, three factors should be considered: (1) the nature of the offense and the character of the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger present to society; relevant to this inquiry are die facts of the crime, the violent or nonviolent nature of the offense, the extent of die offender’s culpability for any resulting injury, and the penological purposes of the prescribed punishment; (2) a comparison of the penalty with punishments imposed in diis jurisdiction for more serious offenses, and if among diem are found more serious crimes punished less severely dian the offense in question, the challenged penalty is to that extent suspect; and (3) a comparison of die penalty with punishments in odier jurisdictions for the same offense.” “The fact that a minimum sentence imposed by a district judge exceeds the life expectancy of the defendant is not grounds, per se, for finding that the sentence is oppressive or constitutes an abuse of discretion.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 26 Kan. App. 2d 644 - State v. Long

3. “conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Munoz