State v. Kendell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Kendell argues that the Supreme Court’s equation of aggravating sentencing factors with elements of an offense mandates that such factors must be included in the indictment. See Jones[, 526 U.S. at 232 ], But the Court’s conclusion that the sentencing factors operate as the “functional equivalent” of elements for purposes of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right does not dictate that such factors are elements for purposes of a Minnesota indictment. See McKaney v. Foreman [ex rel. County of Maricopa], 209 Ariz. 268 , 100 P.3d 18, 22 (2004). The right to a jury trial serves a different purpose than the ‘nature and cause’ requirement and the due process notice requirement; the former addresses the adequacy of proof of the offense charged and of the aggravating sentencing factors, while the latter simply provides a defendant notice of the charges. Id. We therefore conclude that aggravating sentencing factors need not be charged in an indictment in Minnesota. This conclusion is in line with the vast majority of states that have considered this issue. See Evans [v. State], 389 Md. 456 , 886 A.2d [562,] 573-74 (2005); State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257 , 582 S.E.2d 593, 604 (2003).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Wash. 2d 269 - State v. Siers · State v. Azad Haji Abdullah

2. “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and assume that the fact finder disbelieved any contrary evidence.”

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

3. “the back can support a finding of premeditation because it indicates that the shooter took careful aim at the victim.”

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