State v. Shattuck’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 62 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “engaft[ing] sentencing-jury ... requirements onto the Sentencing Guidelines and sentencing statutes would require rewriting them, something our severance jurisprudence does not permit.” Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d at 148 ; accord Barker, 705 N.W.2d at 775-76 . Instead, we”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Chauvin · State v. Lushenko

2. “Because section 609.109, subdivision 4 ... authorize^] the district court to make ... an unconstitutional upward durational departure upon finding an aggravating factor without the aid of a jury, we hold that the statute is facially unconstitutional and section II.D of the guidelines is unconstitutional as applied.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Chauvin · State v. Adkins

3. “The sentence ranges provided in the Sentencing Guidelines Grid are presumed to be appropriate for the crimes to which they apply. Thus, the judge shall pronounce a sentence within the applicable range unless there exist identifiable, substantial, and compelling circumstances to support a sentence outside the range on the grid. A sentence outside the applicable range on the grid is a departure from the sentencing guidelines and is not controlled by the guidelines, but rather, is an exercise of judicial discretion constrained by case law and appellate review. However, in exercising the discretion to depart from a presumptive sentence, the judge must disclose in writing or on the record the particular substantial and compelling circumstances that make the departure more appropriate than the presumptive sentence. Furthermore, if an aggravated dura-tional departure is to be considered, the judge must afford the accused an opportunity to have a jury trial on the additional facts that support the departure and to have the facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If the departure facts are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the judge may exercise the discretion to depart from the presumptive sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Hankerson v. State