State v. Sanders’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Connecticut v. Porter (1997), State v. Apodaca (1994)
134 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 Jackson v. Virginia · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Davis v. Alaska · Chambers v. Mississippi
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he reviewing court engages in a two-step process: First it reviews the evidence [resolving all conflicts and indulging all permissible inferences] with deference to the findings of the trial court; then it determines whether the evidence, viewed in this manner, could justify a finding by any rational trier of fact that each element of the crime charged has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Myers · State v. Wrighter“[w]e do not ... substitute our judgment for that of the factfinder concerning the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be given their testimony. Testimony by a witness whom the factfinder has believed may be rejected by an appellate court only if there is a physical impossibility that the statements are true or the falsity of the statement is apparent without resort to inferences or deductions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Graham · State v. Hamilton“The standard for determining whether one who has conspired to commit a number of crimes is guilty of one or more conspiracies was established in [Ross, 86 N.M. at 214-15 , 521 P.2d at 1163-64 ]. In Ross, our Court of Appeals held that the number of agreements is the focus for determining the number of conspiracies: Where there is one agreement to commit two or more criminal acts, the perpetrators are guilty of a single conspiracy. Because the conspiracy statute, NMSA 1978, Section 30-28-2 (Repl. Pamp. 1984), criminalizes the agreement constituting the conspiracy, [Gilbert, 98 N.M. at 81 , 644 P.2d at 1070 ], the number of agreements to break the law determines the number of criminal conspiracies subject to prosecution. We review the question whether there was one agreement or several under the sufficiency-of-evidence standard set out above. See State v. Hernandez, 104 N.M. 268, 278 , 720 P.2d 303, 313 (Ct.App.) (stating that determination of number of conspiracies is fact question for jury; jury findings reviewed under sufficiency-of-evidenee principles), cert. denied, 104 N.M. 201 , 718 P.2d 1349 (1986).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gallegos
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.