State v. Watkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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. “The South Dakota statute regarding enhanced punishment for habitual criminals does not create a new offense, but merely authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to impose a more severe penalty upon one who is found to have the status of a habitual criminal. State v. DeMarsche, 68 S.D. 250 , 1 N.W.2d 67 (1941); State v. Ruffing, 78 S.D. 556 , 105 N.W.2d 541 (1960).... Whether or not an accused is a habitual offender has no relation to the trial for the charge against him, for the habitual criminal statute has nothing to do with trial procedure. The subsequent finding as to whether he is a habitual offender goes only to the punishment he will receive as a result of his recidivist status and not to the punishment for the particular offense charged.”

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

2. “175.051 Number of peremptory challenges. 1. If the offense charged is punishable by death or by imprisonment for life, each side is entitled to eight peremptory challenges. 2. If the offense charged is punishable by imprisonment for any other term or by fine or by both fine and imprisonment, each side is entitled to four peremptory challenges. 3. The state and the defendant shall exercise their challenges alternately, in that order. Any challenge not exercised in its proper order is waived.”

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

3. “"The South Dakota statute regarding enhanced punishment for habitual criminals does not create a new offense, but merely authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to impose a more severe penalty upon one who is found to have the status of a habitual criminal.... Whether or not an accused is an habitual offender has no relation to the trial for the charge against him, for the habitual criminal statute has nothing to do with trial procedure."”

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