Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Whittlesey v. State (1995), State v. Thompson (1993)
61 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 Williams v. People of State of New York · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · United States v. Grayson · Williams v. State of Oklahoma · United Steelworkers of America v. Weber
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““a sentencing judge is vested with virtually boundless discretion.” The sentencing judge is accorded this broad latitude to best accomplish the objectives of sentencing— punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. A sentence should be premised upon the facts and circumstances of the crime itself and the background of the individual convicted of committing the crime.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Billy W. · Woods v. State“[tjhere are ... some restrictions placed upon the judge presiding at the sentencing proceeding. A sentence cannot violate any constitutional requirements such as the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment; the sentencing judge cannot be motivated by prejudice, ill-will or any other impermissible considerations; and the sentence itself cannot exceed any limitation set by statute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Smith’s ... contention that consideration of uncharged conduct may lead to a double jeopardy violation if a subsequent trial is held is ... meritless. Such evidence is introduced at sentencing to provide the presiding judge with a complete composite of the defendant. Manifestly, it is not a trial to punish the defendant for an untried crime. In United States v. Wise, 603 F.2d 1101 (4th Cir.1979), the defendant was convicted of various drug-related offenses. At sentencing the judge considered perjured testimony given by the defendant at the trial of a codefendant. At that time, the defendant had not been convicted of perjury. Citing United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41 , 98 S.Ct. 2610 , 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978), the Fourth Circuit stated: “[W]e believe that when a sentencing judge takes into account various aspects of the defendant’s background, including other offenses committed, in order to assess the defendant’s need for rehabilitation, the sentence thereby imposed does not constitute punishment for these aspects of defendant’s background.” 603 F.2d at 1106 .”
1 later decision 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.