Williams v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Barbre v. Indianapolis Water Co. (1980), Hope Lutheran Church v. Chellew (1984)
41 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 Apprendi v. New Jersey · Blakely v. Washington · Smylie v. State · Brewer v. Indiana · Brewer v. State
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The purpose of a jury instruction 'is to inform the jury of the law applicable to the facts without misleading the jury and to enable it to comprehend the case clearly and arrive at a just, fair, and correct verdict'" Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (Ind.2001) (quoting Chandler v. State, 581 N.E.2d 1233, 1236 (Ind.1991)). Instruction of the jury is left to the sound judgment of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925, 930 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied. Jury instructions are not to be considered in isolation, but as a whole and in reference to each other. Id. The instructions must be a complete, accurate statement of the law which will not confuse or mislead the jury. Id. at 930-31 . Still, errors in the giving or refusing of instructions are harmless where a conviction is clearly sustained by the evidence and the jury could not properly have found otherwise. Id. at 933 (citing Dill, 741 N.E.2d at 1233 ).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Seeley v. State · Rhoton v. State“In determining whether multiple offenses constitute an episode of criminal conduct, the focus is on the timing of the offenses and the simultaneous and contemporaneous nature, if any, of the crimes. [Additional guidance on the question can be obtained by considering whether the alleged conduct was so closely related in time, place, and circumstance that a complete account of one charge cannot be related without referring to the details of the other charge.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Sentencing lies within the discretion of the trial court. Sentencing decisions are reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. When a trial court enhances a sentence, the trial court is required to state its specific reasons for doing so. The sentencing statement must: (1) identify significant aggravating and mitigating circumstances; (2) state the specific reason why each circumstance is aggravating or mitigating; and (3) demonstrate that the aggravating and mitigating circumstances have been weighed to determine that the aggravators outweigh the mitigators. We examine both the written sentencing order and the trial court’s comments at the sentencing hearing to determine whether the trial court adequately explained the reasons for the sentence. A sentence enhancement will be affirmed in spite of a trial court’s failure to specifically articulate its reasons if the record indicates that the court engaged in the evaluative processes and the sentence imposed is not [inappropriate 3 ]. A single aggravating circumstance may be sufficient to enhance a sentence. A sentence enhancement may still be upheld when á trial court improperly applies an aggravator but other valid aggravators exist.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Heinzman 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.