Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 CALAPP3D 476 - People v. Smith

People v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 2013

15 state decisions

801980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Simmons v. United States · Neil v. Biggers · People v. Caruso · 6 Cal. 3d 78 - In Re Cortez · 14 Cal. 3d 68 - People v. Giminez

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

  1. “(1) defendant's prior history in the substitution of counsel and in the desire to change from self-representation to counsel-representation, (2) the reasons set forth for the request, (3) the length and stage of the trial proceedings, (4) disruption or delay which reasonably might be expected to ensue from the granting of such motion, and (5) the likelihood of defendant's effectiveness in defending against the charges if required to continue to act as his own attorney.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “`While the consideration of these criteria [listed in Elliott ] is obviously relevant and helpful to a trial court in resolving the issue, they are not absolutes, and in the final analysis it is the totality of the facts and circumstances which the trial court must consider in exercising its discretion as to whether or not to permit a defendant to again change his mind regarding representation in midtrial.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the fact that a defendant has no such history does not preclude the court from denying the request if other factors [militate] against it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.