Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Reaves v. State (1992), Shippen v. State (1985)
32 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 Abercrombie v. State · Henderson v. State · Bish v. State · 180 Ind. App. 5 - Reed v. State · Muse 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Ind.Code § 85-50-1-2(a) provides that '... the Court shall determine whether terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently or consecutively.! Consequently, except where the statute deems it mandatory, the imposition of consecutive sentences is committed to the trial court's discretion, subject to the requirement that it set forth its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. Sage v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 699 , 419 N.E.2d 1286 . A trial court may, upon consideration of relevant facts and information, increase the basic penalties, impose consecutive sentences or both. Mott v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 216 , 402 N.E.2d 986 . Furthermore, the same reasons may be used to justify both an increase of the presumptive sentence and the imposition of consecutive sentences. See Bish v. State (1981), Ind., 421 N.E.2d 608 . However, it is clear, that in every case where increased sentences are imposed the record must show that careful consideration commensurate with the denial of liberty involved has been given to the defendant. Due care must be taken to demonstrate a thorough and thoughtful sentencing decision supported by specific and detailed reasons and an indication that the court has considered the goal of rehabilitation. The record must show that the determination of the increased sentence was based upon a consideration of the facts of the specific crime, the aggravating and mitigating cireumstanc-es involved and the relation of the sentence imposed to the objectives which wil”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Kubiak v. State · Ridenour v. State“'The appellate court will not weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Rather, it considers only that evidence most favorable to the State and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom which support the verdict. If there is substantial evidence of probative value which would permit a reasonable trier of fact to find the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt the judgment must be affirmed. Reed v. State (1979), 180 Ind.App. 5 , 387 N.E.2d 82 ; Henderson v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 334 , 403 N.E.2d 1088 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“I had the opportunity to hear this trial twice, and, Mr. Smith ... if I heard the case to the Court, I would have found you guilty the first time. Because I had had no reasonable doubt that you were the one that committed this crime. But that's not my prospect even though I have my own, you know, I'm voicing my opinion in terms of dealing with these crimes.”
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.