Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2014The next constitutional provision cited by Hazelwood is the proportionality requirement of Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution, which provides, "All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense." Brown v. State, 856 N.E.2d 739, 740 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). 2014The next constitutional provision cited by Hazelwood is the proportionality requirement of Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution, which provides, “All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.” Brown v. State, 856 N.E.2d 739, 740 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). | 2 | 2 |
Conner v. Stategreen2 sentences2000As for the proportionality clause in Section 16, our Dunlop opinion observed, “We will find a sentence not proportional ‘only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of an offense.’ ” 724 N.E.2d at 597 (quoting Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind.1993) (citation omitted)). 11 The record clearly indicates that the trial judge considered the nature of the offense when he fashioned the sentence. 12 (R. at 1165.) The 165-year sentence is not disproportional to the nature of the offenses committed. 2000As for the proportionality clause in Section 16, our Dunlop opinion observed, "We will find a sentence not proportional `only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of an offense.'" 724 N.E.2d at 597 (quoting Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind. 1993) (citation omitted)). [11] The record clearly indicates that the trial judge considered the nature of the offense when he fashioned the sentence. [12] *736 (R. at 1165.) The 165-year sentence is not disproportional to the nature of the offenses committed. | 1 | 2 |
Timothy Ladana Hazelwood v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2016Proportionality Clause [19] The proportionality requirement of Article 1, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution provides, “All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.” Hazelwood v. State, 3 N.E.3d 39, 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Clifton v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Further, we will only find a violation of Article I, Section 16 where the punishment is "grossly and unquestionably excessive." See Clifton v. State, 176 Ind.App. 395 , 375 N.E.2d 1126, 1128 (1978) (quoting Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 , 30 S.Ct. 544 , 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910)). 2010Further, we will only find a violation of Article I, Section 16 where the punishment is "grossly and unquestionably excessive." See Clifton v. State, 176 Ind.App. 395 , 375 N.E.2d 1126, 1128 (1978) (quoting Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 , 30 S.Ct. 544 , 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910)). | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. Stategreen1 sentence1997See e.g., Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759 (Ind.1990); Taylor v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind.1987); Schnitz v. State, 650 N.E.2d 717 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); Steelman v. State, 602 N.E.2d 152 (Ind.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1979However, the Supreme Court was unimpressed by a similar argument in Williams, supra. As Justice Pivarnik said at page 246 of 395 N.E.2d, the Eighth Amendment and Article 1, § 16 “require only that the maximum sentence for a lesser included offense not exceed the maximum sentence for the greater offense.” Wells has not demonstrated that the statutory sentencing scheme violates the rule stated in Williams . 1979However, the Supreme Court was unimpressed by a similar argument in Williams, supra. As Justice Pivarnik said, the Eighth Amendment and Article 1, § 16 “require only that the maximum sentence for a lesser included offense not exceed the maximum sentence for the greater offense.” Boyd has not demonstrated that the statutory sentencing scheme violates the rule stated in Williams . | 2 | 1979–1979 |
Weems v. United States
green
2 sentences2010Further, we will only find a violation of Article I, Section 16 where the punishment is "grossly and unquestionably excessive." See Clifton v. State, 176 Ind.App. 395 , 375 N.E.2d 1126, 1128 (1978) (quoting Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 , 30 S.Ct. 544 , 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910)). 2010Further, we will only find a violation of Article I, Section 16 where the punishment is "grossly and unquestionably excessive." See Clifton v. State, 176 Ind.App. 395 , 375 N.E.2d 1126, 1128 (1978) (quoting Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 , 30 S.Ct. 544 , 54 L.Ed. 793 (1910)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Dunlop v. State
green
2 sentences2000As for the proportionality clause in Section 16, our Dunlop opinion observed, “We will find a sentence not proportional ‘only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of an offense.’ ” 724 N.E.2d at 597 (quoting Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind.1993) (citation omitted)). 11 The record clearly indicates that the trial judge considered the nature of the offense when he fashioned the sentence. 12 (R. at 1165.) The 165-year sentence is not disproportional to the nature of the offenses committed. 2000As for the proportionality clause in Section 16, our Dunlop opinion observed, "We will find a sentence not proportional `only when a criminal penalty is not graduated and proportioned to the nature of an offense.'" 724 N.E.2d at 597 (quoting Conner v. State, 626 N.E.2d 803, 806 (Ind. 1993) (citation omitted)). [11] The record clearly indicates that the trial judge considered the nature of the offense when he fashioned the sentence. [12] *736 (R. at 1165.) The 165-year sentence is not disproportional to the nature of the offenses committed. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Schnitz v. State
green
1 sentence1997See e.g., Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759 (Ind.1990); Taylor v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind.1987); Schnitz v. State, 650 N.E.2d 717 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); Steelman v. State, 602 N.E.2d 152 (Ind.App.1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Taylor v. Indiana
green
1 sentence1997See e.g., Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759 (Ind.1990); Taylor v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind.1987); Schnitz v. State, 650 N.E.2d 717 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); Steelman v. State, 602 N.E.2d 152 (Ind.App.1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Steelman v. State
green
1 sentence1997See e.g., Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759 (Ind.1990); Taylor v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind.1987); Schnitz v. State, 650 N.E.2d 717 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); Steelman v. State, 602 N.E.2d 152 (Ind.App.1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Harrison v. State
red
1 sentence1996Harrison, 644 N.E.2d at 1260 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.