Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 361 S.C. 141 - State v. Downs

State v. Downs’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
6
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably State v. Laney (2006), 197 So. 3d 16 - Khadafy Kareem Mullens v. State of Florida (2016)

33 state decisions

260200420102020decided

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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Ring v. Arizona · Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Alexander v. Louisiana · New Jersey v. New York

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

  1. “If the trial court accepts a conditional guilty plea, then the plea will be vacated on appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Appellant asserts Ring v. Arizona renders unconstitutional the requirement in S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20(B) (2003) that the sentencing proceeding be held before the judge when a defendant pleads guilty to murder. We disagree. The capital-sentencing procedure invalidated in Ring does not exist in South Carolina. Arizonas statute required the judge to factually determine whether there existed an aggravating circumstance supporting the death penalty regardless whether the judge or a jury had determined guilt.... In South Carolina, conversely, a defendant convicted by a jury can be sentenced to death only if the jury also finds an aggravating circumstance and recommends the death penalty.... In any event, Ring did not involve jury-trial waivers and is not implicated when a defendant pleads guilty. Other courts have also reached this conclusion.... Appellant was informed that by pleading guilty he waived his right to a jury trial on both guilt and sentencing. He does not argue his waiver was made involuntarily, unknowingly, or unintelligently.... Appellant was not deprived of his right to a jury trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The [Supreme] Court expressly noted in both Apprendi and Ring that the cases did not involve challenges to state indictments.... More important, the Fourteenth Amendment has not been construed to incorporate the Fifth Amendment's Presentment or Indictment Clause.... State law governs indictments for state-law crimes. Under South Carolina law, aggravating circumstances need not be alleged in an indictment for murder. S.C.Code Ann. § 17-19-30 (2003).... The aggravating circumstances listed in S.C.Code Ann. § 16-3-20(C)(a) (2003) are sentencing factors, not elements of murder.”
    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.