State v. Van Horn’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Section 557.036.2 provides, in part, that: The court shall instruct the jury as to the range of punishment authorized by statute and upon a finding of guilt to assess and declare the punishment as a part of their verdict.... Section 558.011.1(6) provides that confinement for a class B misdemeanor will be for ‘a term not to exceed six months’; and, § 560.016.1(2) authorizes a fine ‘which does not exceed ... five hundred dollars.’ Under the instructions now dictated by MAI-CR2d, the jury is not advised of nor given the latter option. For instance, Instruction No. 5, as given, followed MAI-CR2d 31.02 (Entitled— Driving While Intoxicated) and advised the jury that: If you do find the defendant guilty .. . of driving while intoxicated, you will assess and declare the punishment at imprisonment for a term fixed by you, but not to exceed six months. (Emphasis added) More disturbing than the absence of an option for the jury to assess a fine is that portion of the instruction that actually mandates that the jury declare a period of imprisonment. The problem is two-fold. What if a fine is thought by the jury to be an adequate punishment, or conversely, what if it is thought that both imprisonment and a fine should be assessed? The only answer, regularly challenged as inadequate, must come from MAI-CR2d 2.60, which advises the jury that upon a finding of guilt, the court can (1) impose imprisonment for a term not to exceed that assessed by the jury, (2) assess a fine within the limita”

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

2. ““It thus appears that the jury may declare a punishment, which in reality is but a recommendation to the court, consisting of imprisonment for a term not to exceed seven years. We say this declaration is a recommendation because the court may, in its discretion, substitute for the punishment declared by the jury a term of imprisonment in the county jail, or a term of imprisonment by the department of corrections different from but not greater than that declared by the jury. In addition, the court may, in its discretion, impose a fine in lieu of, or in some cases in addition to, the imprisonment determined by the jury.””

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

3. “It is obvious that the Legislature intended that the jury should have the option to declare as punishment a term of imprisonment within the stated limits, but it is equally obvious that the Legislature intended that the court should have the option to substitute therefor, within the stated limits, a term of imprisonment different from that addressed and declared by the jury, and that the court, in its discretion and under statutory guidelines, should have the option to impose a fine in addition to or in lieu of a term of imprisonment within the specified limitations.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Missouri v. Kyle W. Nelson