State v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 160 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 168 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably State v. Woodward (1995), State v. Varela (1999)
3 federal appellate · 160 state decisions
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 Strickland v. Washington · Chambers v. Maroney · United States v. Cronic · Morris v. Slappy · Rideau v. Louisiana
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 168 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“as requiring proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim (or was knowingly heedless that his or her acts created a strong probability of death or great bodily harm)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Our review consists of determining “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” Sutphin, 107 N.M. at 131 , 753 P.2d at 1319 . “Substantial evidence is that evidence which is acceptable to a reasonable mind as adequate support for a conclusion.” State v. Isiah, 109 N.M. 21, 30 , 781 P.2d 293, 302 (1989). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict and resolve all conflicts and indulge all inferences in favor of upholding the verdict. Sutphin, 107 N.M. at 131 , 753 P.2d at 1319 . We may not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the jury. Id.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Green“Assuming arguendo that competent trial counsel would have employed experts in these areas, Defendant has not shown ... “that ‘but for’ counsel’s unprofessional error, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Taylor, 107 N.M. at 73 , 752 P.2d at 788 . In regards to the hair identification evidence, Defendant’s trial counsel was able to discredit' the State’s ham identification evidence by eliciting on cross-examination of the State’s expert witnesses that hair analysis could not conclusively establish identity. Defendant does not explain how a hair analysis expert would be able to east further doubt on this evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lytle v. Jordan
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.