State v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably State v. Rowell (1995), State v. Bernal (2006)
2 federal appellate · 25 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 Herron v. State · State v. Altgilbers · State v. Elliott · People v. Cox · State v. Pedroncelli
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In such a retrial, the jury must determine whether crimes committed on separate days were indeed acts motivated by a separate impulse as charged. In words similar to those suggested by Judge Bivins, 116 N.M. at 318, 862 P.2d at 66 , the trial court would instruct the jury: Evidence has been presented in this case that, as part of a scheme or plan to embezzle, Defendant had only one single, continuing, sustained intent for all [or certain combinations] of the takings. To find Defendant guilty of more than one embezzlement, the burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each act charged was the result of a separate and independent impulse. After considering all the evidence, if you have a reasonable doubt that Defendant acted with a separate and independent criminal impulse for each taking charged, you must find him not guilty of more than any one taking [or combination of takings].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Rowell“We believe our more recent analysis and discussion in Herron v. State, 111 N.M. 357 , 805 P.2d 624 (1991), is applicable to rape, sodomy, and sexual assault or penetration cases. In sex crime cases, the jury looks at several factors to determine if each contact or penetration is part of the same act or is a separate act, Herron, 111 N.M. at 361 , 805 P.2d at 628 , while in larceny and embezzlement cases, the jury looks to see if the defendant’s intent was to achieve a single fraudulent scheme or plan through the commission of several acts, see Allen, 59 N.M. at 141, 280 P.2d at 299; Pedroncelli, 100 N.M. at 680, 675 P.2d at 129.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“embezzling or converting to his own use of anything of value, with which he has been entrusted, with fraudulent intent to deprive the owner thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Faubion
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.