Wilson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Application of Harmelin mandates that we make a threshold determination in this case by considering whether the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole imposed in Wilson's case is grossly disproportionate to her crime. To perform this analysis, we must consider the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the punishment. Solem , 463 U.S. at 290 -91 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 . The United States Supreme Court noted in Solem that no single factor determines when a sentence is grossly disproportionate, and it offered a nonexhaustive list of factors to be considered when a court is assessing the severity of a crime. These factors include consideration of the circumstances of the crime, the harm caused to the victim or to society, the culpability of the offender, and the offender's motive in committing the crime. Id. at 290-94 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 ."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Lane v. State · E.L.Y. v. State

2. “"At the outset, we acknowledge that determinations regarding the punishments to be imposed for different crimes are purely legislative. E.g., Rummel v. Estelle , 445 U.S. 263 , 275-76, 282-84, 100 S.Ct. 1133 , 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) ; Rocker v. State , 443 So.2d 1316 , 1322 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983). We also acknowledge and affirm the oft-stated rule that we generally will not review sentences imposed within statutorily prescribed limits. E.g., Evans v. State , 794 So.2d 415 , 439 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). In Eldridge v. State , 418 So.2d 203 , 207 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982), we stated: " 'While this court may rule a fine or sentence excessive, the separation of powers doctrine forces this court not to substitute its own judgment for that of the legislature unless those constitutional guarantees of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or of Article I, § 15, 1901, Alabama Constitution are clearly violated. Cabble v. State , 347 So.2d 546 (Ala. Cr. App.), cert. denied, 347 So.2d 551 (Ala. 1977).' "”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. E.L.Y. v. State · E.L.Y. v. State

3. “At the outset, we acknowledge that determinations regarding the punishments to be imposed for different crimes are purely legislative. E.g., Rummel v. Estelle , 445 U.S. 263 , 275-76, 282-84, 100 S.Ct. 1133 , 63 L.Ed.2d 382 (1980) ; Rocker v. State , 443 So.2d 1316 , 1322 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983). We also acknowledge and affirm the oft-stated rule that we generally will not review sentences imposed within statutorily prescribed limits. E.g., Evans v. State , 794 So.2d 415 , 439 (Ala. Crim. App. 2000). In Eldridge v. State , 418 So.2d 203 , 207 (Ala. Crim. App. 1982), we stated:”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. E.L.Y. v. State · E.L.Y. v. State