State v. Mancine’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 district · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently October 2020 · most notably State v. Newsome (1996), State v. Brown (1994)
2 district · 74 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 State v. Sloane · State v. LeFurge · 221 N.J. Super. 387 - State v. Boyer
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in certain circumstances, subject to the requirements of fair notice, an offense, if supported by the evidence, should be charged to the jury even though it does not meet the Code's definition of lesser-included offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“comports with our general view that subject to fair notice the jury should resolve the degree of an actor's guilt on the basis of the evidence presented to the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Cooper · State v. Smith“In my view, the lesser-included offense provision of the Code of Criminal Justice, N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8d, permits a defendant to be convicted of "an offense included in an offense charged," meaning that the statutory definition of an "included offense" refers back to the offense for which defendant was indicted, in this case murder. See State v. LeFurge, 101 N.J. 404, 419 , 502 A. 2d 35 [,43] (1986). Hence, as the majority opinion tacitly acknowledges, the aggravated-manslaughter offense in this case was not a lesser-included offense of murder, the indicted offense, because its factual predicate was entirely different. The evidence supporting the aggravated-manslaughter charge indicated that defendant hired someone to injure the decedent, and the murder indictment charged that defendant committed the homicide by his own conduct. Nevertheless, there was clearly a rational basis in the evidence for the aggravated-manslaughter charge, and defendant, understandably, did not object to the trial court's proposed charge on aggravated manslaughter. As we noted in State v. Sloane, 111 N.J. 293, 300 , 544 A. 2d 826 [,829] (1988), the statutory definition of lesser-included offenses is not "all-encompassing," nor are the statutory categories "water-tight compartments." Sloane suggests that in certain circumstances, subject to the requirements of fair notice, an offense not meeting the Code's definition of lesser-included offense should be charged to the jury if it is supported by the evidenc”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Smith
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.