State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A tinge of legal irony surfaces when one considers that a single event, driving while intoxicated for a third time, could otherwise havé the dual effect of simultaneously (1) creating a felony where otherwise the conduct would constitute a misdemeanor and (2) invocation of the sentencing procedure of the Second Offender Act so as to substitute judicial assessment of punishment for jury assessment. Under such circumstances, the possibility of double enhancement of punishment for a single statutorily prescribed offense is more than a faint specter. It is logical to assume that the legislature chose to avoid this ironical result by excluding any statutorily prescribed offense which might contain its own provisions for enhanced punishment for subsequent violations. The view that a penal statute proscribing certain conduct and also providing for enhanced penalties for subsequent violation may be such a complete code of penalties as not to contemplate or admit of application of the Second Offender Act is not as novel as it may initially sound. See, e.g.: State v. Lujan, 76 N.M. 111 , 412 P.2d 405, 408 (1966); State v. Lard, 86 N.M. 71 , 519 P.2d 307, 310 (N.M.App.1974); and State v. Edwards, 317 S.W.2d 441, 448 , footnote 1 (Mo. banc 1958).” (Emphasis added.)”

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

2. ““In construing a penal statute, the general rule is that a criminal statute must be construed liberally in favor of the defendant and strictly against the state. “ ‘It is an ancient rule of statutory construction and an oft-repeated one that penal statutes should be strictly construed against the government or parties seeking to exact statutory penalties and in favor of persons on whom such penalties are sought to be imposed. When the law imposes a punishment which acts upon the offender alone, and it is not a reparation to the party injured, and the punishment is entirely within the discretion of the law giver, it will not be presumed that the legislature intended the punishment to extend farther than is expressly stated. * * # * * * “And as a corollary of the rule, in case of doubt concerning the severity of the penalty prescribed by a statute construction will favor a milder penalty over a harsher one.’ 3 Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 59.03 (4th ed.1974).””

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