Hankerson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Collins and DobbeH make clear that a change affecting the identity of the fact finder is procedural and thus is not burdened by ex post facto restrictions. The effect of the 2005 amendments to section 244.10 was to change the roles of the judge and jury. This is a procedural change that did not add aggravating factors, eliminate elements of aggravating factors, or increase the duration of the sentence authorized by a finding of aggravating factors .... The amendments only changed the procedure used to establish the aggravating factors. ... Even if the 2005 amendments did not fall under this procedtcral law exception, they are not prohibited as ex post facto laws becatise they do not work to Hanker-son’s disadvantage. “It is axiomatic that for a law to be ex post facto it must be more onerous than the prior law.” Dobbert, 432 U.S. at 294 , 97 S.Ct. 2290 [, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 ]; see also Lynce, 519 U.S. at 441, 117 S.Ct. 891 [, 137 L.Ed.2d 63 ], The 2005 sentencing amendments inure to Hankerson’s advantage because they afford her a new sentencing hearing where the quantum of the proof will be higher. They vindicate, not violate, Hankerson’s constitutional rights.”

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

2. “[w]hen read together, the 2005 amendments to [Minn.Stat. § 244.10, subd. 5(a) (2004)], and the former version of Minn. Sent. Guidelines II.D authorize a district court to impanel a sentencing jury on resentencing of a conviction obtained before the act's effective date and to use the jury's findings to impose a new sentence.”

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