State v. Mora’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 156 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably State v. Rojo (1998), State v. Duffy (1998)
2 federal appellate · 156 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 Blockburger v. United States · Swafford v. State · State v. Sutphin · State v. Apodaca · State v. Woodward
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The reviewing court does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“When evidence is disclosed for the first time during trial, this Court must consider the following factors to determine whether the error is reversible: (1) whether the State breached some duty or intentionally deprived the defendant of evidence; (2) whether the improperly non-disclosed evidence was material; (3) whether the nondisclosure of the evidence prejudiced the defendant; and (4) whether the trial court cured the failure to timely disclose the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barrera · State v. Ortega““In [State v.] Harrison, [ 90 N.M. 439 , 564 P.2d 1321 (1977) ], this Court considered two approaches in determining whether a felony is inherently dangerous for felony murder purposes. Id. Under the first approach, ‘the felony is examined in the abstract to determine whether it is inherently dangerous to human life.’ Id. See, e.g., People v. Lee, 234 Cal.App.3d 1214 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 117, 122 (1991); State v. Wesson, 247 Kan. 639 , 802 P.2d 574, 579 (1990) superseded by statute as stated in State v. Mitchell, 262 Kan. 687 , 942 P.2d 1, 5 (1997). This ‘abstract approach’ analyzes the elements of the underlying felony without regard to the particular facts of the case. Lee, 286 Cal.Rptr. at 122 . The abstract approach involves a two-step process by which the court first examines the ‘primary element’ of the offense at issue to determine whether it involves the requisite danger to life. Id. The court then looks to the ‘factors elevating the offense to a felony’ to determine whether the felony, taken in the abstract, is inherently dangerous to human life. Id. Thus, under the abstract approach, the court decides as a matter of law whether a particular felony is inherently dangerous to human life. “Under the second possible approach cited by Harrison, ‘both the nature of the felony and the circumstances surrounding its commission may be considered to determine whether it was inherently dangerous to human life.’ 90 N.M. at 442 , 564 P.2d at 1324 . Some courts have used this factual a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mitchell
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.