64 Wash. App. 620 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[W]e observe that a community faces a greater peril from collective criminal activity than it does from criminal activity by one individual. A criminal enterprise which is composed of a number of persons, whether it is known as a gang, a mob, or a criminal syndicate, poses a great challenge to law enforcement agencies. Furthermore, the specter of such organized wrongdoing tends to make the general public feel that it is held hostage by the criminal enterprise.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 Wash. App. 340 - State v. Harris · State v. Barnes

2. “I. The terrorist-type shooting by defendants was in furtherance of a criminal enterprise, the Hilltop Crips Gang, to project its power and drug empire through violence. This is a substantial and compelling reason to sentence outside the standard range.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 69 Wash. App. 528 - State v. Johnson · State v. Bluehorse

3. “If Smith's sentence had been enhanced simply because he belonged to a gang, Smith's argument might have merit. The trial court's conclusion was not, however, that broad. It concluded that Smith's conduct in shooting "slobs" in order to further the reputation of the criminal enterprise, the gang, as a powerful and violent organization, was a basis for the exceptional sentence. This reasoning, which clearly finds support in the trial court's unchallenged findings of fact, was a proper basis for enhancing the standard range sentence. . . . While we do not necessarily disagree with Smith's contention that persons should not receive a criminal penalty merely because they belong to an organization, regardless of what we may think of the organization, we do not agree that the sentencing court may not consider a person's motivation for criminal conduct. Here, Smith was acting to further the criminal enterprise. It is that motivation, to further the illegal activities of the gang, that underlies the increased sentence, not the mere fact of gang membership. . . . ... In cases such as this, where specific criminal activity is motivated by the desire of the criminal to further the illegal objectives of the gang, by projecting its image as a terrorist organization, an appropriate basis for an exceptional sentence is established.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 69 Wash. App. 528 - State v. Johnson