Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 N.M. 780 - State v. Orosco

State v. Orosco’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

186
cited by 186 later decisions
2
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 182 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 186 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably State v. Cunningham (2000), State v. Barber (2004)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 182 state decisions

7801992200020102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Sandstrom v. Montana · Tumey v. State of Ohio · Rose v. Clark · Sullivan v. United States

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

  1. “Clearly, when a jury’s finding that a defendant committed the alleged act, under the evidence in the case, necessarily includes or amounts to a finding on an element omitted from the jury’s instructions, any doubt as to the reliability of the conviction is eliminated and the error cannot be said to be fundamental. The trial court’s error in failing to instruct on an essential element of a crime for which defendant has been convicted, where there can be no dispute that the element was established, therefore does not require reversal of the conviction.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The rule of fundamental error applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if substantial justice has not been done.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “if the instruction omitted an element which was at issue in the case, the error could be considered fundamental: The question of guilt would be so doubtful that it would `shock the conscience' of this Court to permit the conviction to stand.”
    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.