State v. Peralto’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. “[T]he court shall instruct the jury that it must determine whether the prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel." The jury's finding must be unanimous in order for the court, in the exercise of its sound discretion, to consider an enhanced sentence. The jury shall then conduct its deliberations and submit its findings in response to a special verdict form. If the jury does not come to a unanimous decision that the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" beyond a reasonable doubt, no enhanced sentence shall be imposed. Pursuant to the language of HRS § 706-657, if the jury does find unanimously that the murder was "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" beyond a reasonable doubt, the court may, in its discretion, impose an enhanced sentence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. KEOHOKAPU

2. “[i]f [State v.] Young[, 93 Hawai'i 224 , 999 P.2d 230 (2000),] applies retroactively, the Peraltos’ enhanced Sentences must be vacated and the cases remanded for a new sentencing hearing 3 in which a jury would be instructed according to Young. 4 ,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Maugaotega

3. “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. KEOHOKAPU