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.
23 South Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Dakota 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 |
|---|---|---|
Harmelin v. Michigangreen2 sentences1996"Whether the Eighth Amendment even encompasses a proportionality principle in non-capital cases has been called into question by the United States Supreme Court.” Bult II, 507 N.W.2d at 328 n. 2 (citing Harmelin, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 ). 1996"Whether the Eighth Amendment even encompasses a proportionality principle in non-capital cases has been called into question by the United States Supreme Court.” Bult II, 507 N.W.2d at 328 n. 2 (citing Harmelin, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 ). | 2 | 7 |
State v. Bonnergreen2 sentences2012Jones’s sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment. [¶ 19.] Jones’s second issue on appeal is whether his sentence violates either the United States Constitution or the South Dakotas Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. “[W]hen a sentence is challenged on constitutional grounds as being cruel and unusual, we apply the proportionality standard from State v. Bonner, 1998 S.D. 30 , 577 N.W.2d 575 .” State v. Overbey, 2010 S.D. 78, ¶ 13 , *207 790 N.W.2d 35, 40 . 2010However, when a sentence is challenged on constitutional grounds as being cruel and unusual, we apply the proportionality standard from State v. Bonner, 1998 SD 30 , 577 N.W.2d 575 . | 2 | 5 |
Hutto v. Davisgreen2 sentences1992Let us review the words of Mr. Justice Powell of the United States Supreme Court in a specially concurring opinion in Hutto v. Davis 454 U.S. 370 , 102 S.Ct. 703 , 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982), and as further found in 30 Criminal Law Reporter 4159, 4160 (1982): Yet, our system of justice always has recognized that appellate courts do have a responsibility — expressed in the proportionality principle — not to shut their eyes to grossly disproportionate sentences that are manifestly unjust. 1992Let us review the words of Mr. Justice Powell of the United States Supreme Court in a specially concurring opinion in Hutto v. Davis 454 U.S. 370 , 102 S.Ct. 703 , 70 L.Ed.2d 556 (1982), and as further found in 30 Criminal Law Reporter 4159, 4160 (1982): Yet, our system of justice always has recognized that appellate courts do have a responsibility — expressed in the proportionality principle — not to shut their eyes to grossly disproportionate sentences that are manifestly unjust. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Quevedogreen1 sentence2023See id. ¶ 37, 947 N.W.2d at 410 (“Only if this threshold inquiry reveals gross disproportionality will -29- #29946 we compare [the defendant’s] sentence to other sentences imposed on juveniles convicted of second-degree murder.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pipergreen1 sentence2010See State v. Piper, 2006 S.D. 1 , ¶ 72, 709 N.W.2d 783, 810-11 (citing Bonner, 1998 S.D. 30 , ¶ 17, 577 N.W.2d at 580 ). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kaisergreen1 sentence2010See State v. Kaiser, 526 N.W.2d 722, 726 (S.D.1995) (analyzing the issue under the shock-the-conscience test). [¶ 64.] The Supreme Court has noted that, outside the context of capital cases, the proportionality principle only comes into play in the extreme example, if for example a legislature made overtime parking a felony punishable by life imprisonment. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. James T. Schellgreen1 sentence2007In supporting the same proposition, the court in United States v. Schell, 692 F.2d 672, 675 (10thCir.1982) reasoned that concluding otherwise would mean that any sentence regardless of length could be deemed cruel and unusual punishment when imposed on a defendant already serving lengthy sentences for prior convictions. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Antonino Aiellogreen1 sentence2007In United States v. Aiello, 864 F.2d 257, 265 (2dCir.1988), the court also took notice of the reasoning from O’Neil , holding that a proportionality analysis did not apply to a defendant’s life sentence without parole plus 140 consecutive years because the analysis properly focuses on the sentence applied for each specific crime and not cumulative sentencing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bultgreen2 sentences2006See State v. Bult, 544 NW2d 214, 217 (SD 1996) (Bult IV ). 2006See State v. Bult, 544 N.W.2d 214, 217 (S.D.1996) (.Bult IV). | 1 | 1 |
Rummel v. Estellegreen2 sentences2002See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272 , 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1188, 68 L.Ed.2d 382 , 390 (1980). [¶ 20.] Proportionality review involves five basic principles. 2002See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 272 , 100 S.Ct. 1133, 1188, 68 L.Ed.2d 382 , 390 (1980). [¶ 20.] Proportionality review involves five basic principles. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huettlgreen2 sentences1992Our Court, if it had its way, would observe the old rule in State v. Huettl, 379 N.W.2d 298, 303 (S.D.1985) that the trial courts have broad discretion to fix sentences within statutory limits. 1992Our Court, if it had its way, would observe the old rule in State v. Huettl, 379 N.W.2d 298, 303 (S.D.1985) that the trial courts have broad discretion to fix sentences within statutory limits. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Weikergreen2 sentences1992This Court has never found a sentence to be disproportionate, with exception of State v. Weiker (Weiker I), 342 N.W.2d 7, 11 (S.D.1983). 1992This Court has never found a sentence to be disproportionate, with exception of State v. Weiker (Weiker I), 342 N.W.2d 7, 11 (S.D. 1983). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences1989In my special concurrence in Myers , cited by the majority, I wrote "[t]he majority opinion sidesteps both the conscience of the Court test and the proportionality test." State v. Myers, 411 N.W.2d 402, 407 (S.D. 1987). 1989In my special concurrence in Myers, cited by the majority, I wrote “[t]he majority opinion sidesteps both the conscience of the Court test and the proportionality test.” State v. Myers, 411 N.W.2d 402, 407 (S.D.1987). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Dakota. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences1993But Justices White, Blackmun, Stevens, and Marshall adhered to the broader proportionality principle in the Sol em v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) holding. 1993But Justices White, Blackmun, Stevens, and Marshall adhered to the broader proportionality principle in the Sol em v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983) holding. | 4 | 1985–2017 |
Bult v. Leapley
green
2 sentences1996"Whether the Eighth Amendment even encompasses a proportionality principle in non-capital cases has been called into question by the United States Supreme Court.” Bult II, 507 N.W.2d at 328 n. 2 (citing Harmelin, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 ). 1996"Whether the Eighth Amendment even encompasses a proportionality principle in non-capital cases has been called into' question by the United States Supreme Court.” Bult II, 507 N.W.2d at 328 , n. 2 (citing Harmelin, 501 U.S. 957 , 111 S.Ct. 2680 , 115 L.Ed.2d 836 ). | 3 | 1994–1996 |
Ewing v. California
green
2 sentences2006Ewing, 538 US at 22 , 123 SCt at 1185 , 155 LEd2d 108 (citation omitted). [22] I am not suggesting that we should never consider the consecutive nature of sentences in a proportionality challenge. 2006Ewing, 538 US at 22 , 123 SCt at 1185 , 155 LEd2d 108 (citation omitted). [22] I am not suggesting that we should never consider the consecutive nature of sentences in a proportionality challenge. | 2 | 2006–2010 |
State v. Pack
green
2 sentences1996In Pack, 516 N.W.2d at 669 , this court held the sentence did not shock its conscience and therefore did not reach the proportionality analysis. 1996In Pack, 516 N.W.2d at 669 , this court held the sentence did not shock its conscience and therefore did not reach the proportionality analysis. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Ferguson
green
2 sentences1996However, in Ferguson, 519 N.W.2d at 54 , this court found Ferguson's sentence did not shock its conscience, but refrained from entering a proportionality discussion because no disproportionality data had been given to the trial court. 1996However, in Ferguson, 519 N.W.2d at 54 , this court found Ferguson’s sentence did not shock its conscience, but refrained from entering a proportionality discussion because no dispropor-tionality data had been given to the trial court. | 2 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Black Cloud
green
1 sentence2024Based on our review of the record, we do not find the gravity of Lanpher’s offenses grossly disproportionate to the harshness of his punishment. [¶24.] Although Lanpher urges us to compare his sentence to those given to other criminals in the same jurisdiction, “this argument overlooks the fact that we would engage in a proportionality analysis only if we had determined [Lanpher’s] sentence to be grossly disproportionate.” State v. Black Cloud, 2023 S.D. 53, ¶ 79 , 996 N.W.2d 670 , 688. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Overbey
green
2 sentences2012Jones’s sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment. [¶ 19.] Jones’s second issue on appeal is whether his sentence violates either the United States Constitution or the South Dakotas Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. “[W]hen a sentence is challenged on constitutional grounds as being cruel and unusual, we apply the proportionality standard from State v. Bonner, 1998 S.D. 30 , 577 N.W.2d 575 .” State v. Overbey, 2010 S.D. 78, ¶ 13 , *207 790 N.W.2d 35, 40 . 2012Jones’s sentence is not cruel and unusual punishment. [¶ 19.] Jones’s second issue on appeal is whether his sentence violates either the United States Constitution or the South Dakotas Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. “[W]hen a sentence is challenged on constitutional grounds as being cruel and unusual, we apply the proportionality standard from State v. Bonner, 1998 S.D. 30 , 577 N.W.2d 575 .” State v. Overbey, 2010 S.D. 78, ¶ 13 , *207 790 N.W.2d 35, 40 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hinger
green
2 sentences2006On remand, the circuit court was ordered to engage in a proportionality analysis and resentence Blair taking into account the factors set forth in Bonner, and Hinger, 1999 SD 91 , 600 N.W.2d 542 . 2006On remand, the circuit court was ordered to engage in a proportionality analysis and resentence Blair taking into account the factors set forth in Bonner, and Hinger, 1999 SD 91 , 600 N.W.2d 542 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Guthmiller
green
2 sentences2006State v. Guthmiller, 2003 SD 83, ¶ 43 , 667 N.W.2d 295, 309 . *432 Our standard of review for such challenges is well established: “[To] assess a challenge to proportionality we first determine whether the sentence appears grossly disproportionate. 2006State v. Guthmiller, 2003 SD 83, ¶ 43 , 667 N.W.2d 295, 309 . *432 Our standard of review for such challenges is well established: “[To] assess a challenge to proportionality we first determine whether the sentence appears grossly disproportionate. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Pugh
green
2 sentences2003State v. Pugh, 2002 SD 16, ¶ 19 , 640 N.W.2d 79, 85 . 2003State v. Pugh, 2002 SD 16, ¶ 19 , 640 N.W.2d 79, 85 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Peterson
green
2 sentences1997State v. Peterson, 1996 SD 140 , ¶ 21 n. 5, 557 N.W.2d 389 , 394 n. 5. [¶ 30.] When we analyze whether a punishment “meets the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally,” we look to the Legislature for guidance. 1997State v. Peterson, 1996 SD 140 , ¶ 21 n. 5, 557 N.W.2d 389 , 394 n. 5. [¶ 30.] When we analyze whether a punishment “meets the disapproval and condemnation of the conscience and reason of men generally,” we look to the Legislature for guidance. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Christians
green
2 sentences1994State v. Christians, 381 N.W.2d 214 (S.D.1986). 1994State v. Christians, 381 N.W.2d 214 (S.D.1986). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Basker
green
2 sentences1992Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 880 ; Basker, 468 N.W.2d at 418 . 1992Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 880 ; Basker, 468 N.W.2d at 418 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Lykken
green
2 sentences1992Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 880 ; Basker, 468 N.W.2d at 418 . 1992Lykken, 484 N.W.2d at 880 ; Basker, 468 N.W.2d at 418 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.