State v. Valera’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

77 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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The authority of a trial court to select and determine the severity of a penalty is normally undisturbed on review in the absence of an apparent abuse of discretion or unless applicable statutory or constitutional commands have not been observed.” State v. Valera, 74 Haw. 424, 439 , 848 P.2d 376, 383 , reconsideration denied, 74 Haw. 650 , 853 P.2d 542 (1993).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Carvalho · State v. Gaylord

2. “A sentencing judge generally has “broad discretion in imposing a sentence,” State v. Nunes, 72 Haw. 521, 524 , 824 P.2d 837, 840 (1992), and the sentence thus imposed should be tailored to the particular circumstances of a defendant’s case. State v. Nobriga, 56 Haw. 75, 83 , 527 P.2d 1269, 1274 (1974) (citation omitted). To achieve this end, there is a legitimate need to provide a sentencing judge with complete information about the defendant. Id.; see also State v. Murphy, 59 Haw. 1, 21 , 575 P.2d 448, 461 (1978). Indeed, a sentencing judge is required to consider specific statutory factors in determining the sentence to be imposed. See HRS § 706-606 (Supp. 1992). Therefore, the scope of a sentencing judge’s inquiry into a defendant’s background is very broad and limitations on the kind and/or source of information the court may consider are not lightly imposed. Verdugo v. United States, 402 F.2d 599, 611 (9th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 925 , 90 S.Ct. 931 , 25 L.Ed.2d 105 (1970), and cert. denied, 402 U.S. 961 [ 91 S.Ct. 1623 , 29 L.Ed.2d 124 ] (1971). See also Murphy, 59 Haw. at 21 , 575 P.2d at 461 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Keawe v. State

3. “In State v. Tachibana, 67 Haw. 573 , 698 P.2d 287 (1985), this court held that a trial court could not enhance a defendant’s sentence based on an aggravating factor not established by the evidence. Id. at 580 , 698 P.2d at 293 . More recently, in State v. Nunes, 72 Haw. 521 , 824 P.2d 837 (1992), we held that a judge cannot punish a defendant for an uncharged crime in the belief that it too deserves punishment. An adjudication of guilt is required before a sentence may be imposed. See, e.g., Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure Rule 32(a).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Shabazz