Ison v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Many crimes-from attempted murder and robbery to bribery and driving while intoxicated-do not require proof of physical injury or actual harm to property. These offenses are punished because of the risks they create, and because of the serious disruption of the social fabric they entail. Such risks and disruptions are "harms" for purposes of the criminal law: [The criminal law deals with the] harm which results from human conduct-social harm. With reference to this term, it [should] be mentioned that it is socially harmful not only to have a man murdered, a dwelling burglariously. invaded, or property stolen, but also to have a conspiracy formed in the community, to have one member thereof challenge another to a duel, or offer to bribe an officer. In these latter instances, let it be emphasized, it is socially harmful to have such influences abroad in the community even if the criminal purpose of the conspiracy is not achieved, the challenge is refused, and the bribe rejected. R. Perkins & R. Boyce, Criminal Law (3rd ed.1982), p. 11. For these reasons, we reject [the] contention that mitigator (d)(18) speaks only to physical harm to persons or property. Instead, ... [when a defendant proposes mitigator (d)(13)[,] the sentencing court can take into account not only the physical injury and harm to property inflicted by the defendant, but also the relative seriousness of the defendant's conduct and the risk of harm posed by the defendant's conduct.”

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

2. “the facts surrounding the commission of the [present] offense and any previous offenses by the defendant establish that the horm caused by the defendant's conduct is consistently minor and inconsistent with the imposition of a substantial period of imprisonment”

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

3. “the facts surrounding the commission of the offense and any previous offenses by the defendant establish that the harm caused by the defendant's conduct is consistently minor and inconsistent with the imposition of a substantial period of imprisonment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Simants v. State