Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The “overbreadth doctrine” is “designed to protect innocent persons from having the legitimate exercise of their constitutionally protected freedoms fall within the ambit of a statute written more broadly than needed to proscribe illegitimate and unprotected conduct.” The authoritative construction of statutes by state courts controls over-breadth analysis. The crucial question is whether [Indiana Code Section] 35-38-2-2.4[, which allows as a condition of probation a prohibition on contact with any person under sixteen years of age,] “sweeps within its prohibitions a substantial amount of conduct which may not be punished under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” A statute is not overbroad merely because an appellant may conceive of a single impermissible application. A trial court has broad discretion to impose conditions of probation which will produce a law abiding citizen and protect the public. Within certain parameters, the condition may impinge upon the probationer’s exercise of an otherwise constitutionally protected right. The Constitution does not prohibit the State from punishing dangerous behavior or attempting to prevent recidivism by those who engage in criminal behavior through their associational relationships.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ronald Rexroat v. State of Indiana

2. “The evidence that [the child] was comfortable in identifying Smith as his father supports an inference that the contact between Smith and [the child] was substantial. Also, the observations of the Head Start employees were sufficient to show contact on more than one occasion. . . . The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Smith's probation.”

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

3. “designed to protect innocent persons from having the legitimate exercise of their constitutionally protected freedoms fall within the ambit of a statute written more broadly than needed to proseribe illegitimate and unprotected conduct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Parks v. Madison County