through a post-verdict review, rather than with pre-verdict jury instructions. Similarly, Williams’ holding is inapposite in the context of the reasonable relationship inquiry. Williams mandates that juries receive proper instruction on harm to nonparties, an instruction that is essential if the jury is to calculate the proper amount of punitive damages. But the reasonable relationship inquiry is markedly different from the jury’s determination of a specific amount of punitive damages; its purpose is to aid in ascertaining the constitutional ceiling. Unlike the initial damage calculation, determining the constitutional ceiling on a punitive damage award is a question of law, properly reserved for the court. See Bains LLC v. Arco Prods. Co., 405 F.3d 764, 777 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Although states are certainly free to
holding that whether a previous conviction is a crime of violence is a question of law not of fact as it must be determined by interpreting  4b12 holding that the constitutional level of punitive damages is not a finding of fact that must be determined by the jury it may be determined de novo by the court holding that when a prr sentence is determined to be illegal the defendant is entitled to a de novo resentencing recognizing that determination of appropriate sentence to be imposed should ordinarily be determined by the trial court on remand rather than at the appellate level holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action