State v. Nathan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Defendant’s] sentence of life without parole for first-degree murder violates the Eighth Amendment because, as in Miller , it was imposed with no individualized consideration of the myriad of factors discussed in the Miller decision. Accordingly, [defendant] must be re-sentenced in accordance with Miller’s constitutional safeguards requiring the sen-tencer to consider whether a sentence of life without parole is just and appropriate in light of [defendant’s] age and the other circumstances surrounding his offense.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Reyes E Olivas · State of Missouri v. Trent L. Williams

2. “[I]f the sentencer conducts the individualized assessment required by Miller and is persuaded beyond a reasonable doubt that sentencing .[a juvenile offender] to life in prison without parole is just and appropriate under all the circumstances, the trial court must impose that sentence. If the sentencer is not persuaded that this sentence is just and appropriate, section 565.020 is void as applied to [the juvenile offender] because it fails to provide a constitutionally permissible punishment [for the crime it purports to create]. In that event, [the juvenile offender] cannot be convicted of first-degree murder and the trial court must find him [or her] guilty of second-degree murder [under section 565.021.1(1)] instead. In addition, the trial court must vacate [his or her] conviction for armed criminal action that was predicated on [the juvenile offender] being guilty of first-degree murder and, instead, find [him or her] guilty of' armed criminal action in connection with that second-degree murder..,. [[Image here]] After the trial court enters these findings, the sentencer will determine [the juvenile offender’s] sentences within the statutory range applicable to these crimes. See §§ 658.011.1(1) (range applicable to second-degree murder is 10 to 30 years or life (with parole)) and 571.015.1 (range applicable to armed criminal action is a minimum of three years with no upper limit). [I]f [the juvenile offender] does not waive his [or her] right to jury sentencing on remand”

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

3. “[T]he certification procedure created in section 211.071 pertains to individuals, not to specific conduct, crimes or charges. The statute provides, in pertinent part: 1. If a petition alleges that a child between the ages of twelve and seven teen has committed an offense which would be considered a felony if committed by an adult, the court may ... in its discretion, dismiss the petition and transfer the child to a court of general jurisdiction for prosecution under the general law. [[Image here]] 9. When a petition has been dismissed thereby permitting a child to be prosecuted under the general law, the jurisdiction of the juvenile court over that child is forever terminated, except as provided in subsection 10 of this section, for an act that would be a violation of a state law or municipal ordinance. [[Image here]] Section 211.071 (emphasis added). The plain language of these sections demonstrates that the focus in a certification proceeding is on the juvenile, not the conduct alleged in the petition. A petition pursuant to sections 211.031.1(3) and 211.091 serves only to invoke the juvenile court’s exclusive jurisdiction by identifying the individual as being younger than 17 years old and alleging that the child has engaged in conduct that would be a crime if committed by an adult. Under the procedure set forth in section 211.071, the juvenile court may dismiss the petition and “transfer the child” to a court of general jurisdiction to be prosecuted under the general law.”

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