State v. Commeau’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “2. ... [Sentences shall be concurrent unless, in considering the following factors, the court decides to impose sentences consecutively: A. That the convictions are for offenses based on different conduct or arising from different criminal episodes; [or] D. That the seriousness of the criminal conduct involved in either a single crimi nal episode or in multiple criminal episodes ... require[s] a sentence of imprisonment in excess of the maximum available for the most serious offense. 3. A defendant may not be sentenced to consecutive terms for crimes arising out of the same criminal episode when: B. One crime consists only of a conspiracy, attempt, solicitation or other form of preparation to commit, or facilitation of, the other.”

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

2. “Not requesting findings ... appears a competent tactical choice; a request for findings could have invited adverse findings, fully supported by the record ....”

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

3. “[w]e have never required the sentencing judge to address each of the factors set out [in the sentencing statute] and explicitly negate them.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State of Maine v. J.R.