McNew v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Williams v. State (1979), Collins v. State (1981)
3 federal appellate · 68 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 Gardner v. State · Wells v. State · Misenheimer v. State · Boles v. State · Ringham v. State
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(a) In determining what sentence to impose for a crime the court shall consider the risk that the person will commit another crime, the nature and circumstances of the crime committed, and the prior criminal record, character and condition of the person. (c) The court may consider these factors as aggravating circumstances or as favoring imposing consecutive terms of imprisonment: (1) The person has recently violated the conditions of any probation, parole, or pardon granted him, (2) The person has a history of criminal activity, (3) The person is in need of correctional or rehabilitative treatment that can best be provided by his commitment to a penal facility, (4) Imposition of a reduced sentence or suspension of the sentence, and imposition of probation would depreciate the seriousness of the crime, (5) The victim of the crime was sixty-five (65) years of age or older, and (6) The victim of the crime was mentally or physically infirm.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““(1) The reviewing court will not revise a sentence authorized by statute except where such sentence is manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. “(2) A sentence is not manifestly unreasonable unless no reasonable person could find such sentence appropriate to the particular offense and offender for which such sentence was imposed.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Perry v. State · Rodriguez v. State““When the statute indicates what factors are to be considered in determining what sentence to impose for a crime, the factors are to be considered as aggravating or mitigating circumstances, since Ind. Code § 35-50-2-4 allows no trial court discretion initially by providing that the sentence ‘shall’ be thirty years. Therefore, by the express language of West’s Ann.Ind. § 35-4.1-4-7(a), the legislature intended that the nature and circumstances of the crime committed shall be considered as aggravating or mitigating circumstances, otherwise this subsection would have no meaning. Consequently one cannot say that the particularly serious nature of defendant’s crime was already legislated into the underlying thirty-year sentence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.