State v. Acosta’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
February 2003
most recently cited
22 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Griffith v. Kentucky · State v. Wilson · State v. Orosco · State v. Osborne · State v. Parish
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“under our rules of criminal procedure and the doctrine of fundamental error, the use of a jury instruction that omits an essential element of the offense can be grounds for reversal even when the omission was caused by the defendant’s own actions. The rationale behind this ruling is that “it is the duty of the court, not the defendant, to instruct the jury on the essential elements of a crime.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Peterson“cases are not final until there has been a judgment of conviction, sentence, and exhaustion of rights of appeal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mascarenas
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.