Hamilton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2016
21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Doyle v. Ohio · Williams v. People of State of New York · Knowles v. United States · Dorman v. State · United States v. Barton
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I am not confident, however, that in every case where the defendant denies a material matter we should require the state either to call a witness to testify at the sentencing hearing or to prove the unavailability of a witness before using hearsay statements. I would prefer to resolve this issue on a case-by-case basis. It is important for the trial court to have as much reliable information as possible when sentencing a defendant. I am concerned that the rule which the court announces in this case may unduly restrict that information in other cases. [2]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Ashenfelter v. State“Factors in aggravation and mitigation. (c) The following facts shall be considered by the sentencing court and may aggravate the presumptive terms set out in AS 12.55.125: (8) the defendant’s prior criminal history includes conduct involving aggravated or repeated instances of assaultive behavior; (21) the defendant has a criminal history of repeated instances of conduct violative of criminal laws, whether punishable as felonies or misdemeanors, similar in nature to the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced under this section[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cockerham v. State“"[T]he defendant’s prior criminal history includes conduct involving aggravated or repeated instances of assaultive behavior.” The provision had previously required prior convictions. The accompanying commentary makes it clear that the legislature did not consider the phrase criminal history to require criminal convictions. See 1982 House Journal Supp. No. 63 at 18 (June 1, 1982). The legislature’s treatment of (c)(8) supports our construction of (c)(21).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fagan v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.