Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 NH 6 - State v. Benoit

State v. Benoit’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
16
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

4 district · 88 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 596 So. 2d 957 - Traylor v. State (1992), State v. James (1996)

4 district · 88 state decisions — followed in 16 states

5101985199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Fare v. Michael C. · Lawrence Metze v. New York · Bonanno v. United States

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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) The chronological age of the juvenile. (2) The apparent mental age of the' juvenile. (3) The educational level of the juvenile. (4) The juvenile’s physical condition. (5) The juvenile’s previous dealings with the police or court appearances. (6) The extent of the explanation of rights. (7) The language of the warnings given. (8) The methods of interrogation. (9) The length of interrogation. (10) The length of time the juvenile was in custody. (11) Whether the juvenile was held incommunicado. (12) Whether the juvenile was afforded the opportunity to consult with an adult. (13) The juvenile’s understanding of the offense charged. (14) Whether the juvenile was warned of possible transfer to adult court. (15) Whether the juvenile later repudiated the statement.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “before a juvenile can be deemed to have voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived his or her fundamental constitutional rights under part I, article 15 of the New Hampshire Constitution, (1) he or she must be informed, in language understandable to a child, of his or her rights, (2) the court must review and make findings on each of the factors enumerated ... above surrounding the giving of the statement, (3) the judge ... must be persuaded by an adequate number of favorable findings that the waiver was made voluntarily, intelligently and with full knowledge of the consequences, and (4), if facing charges that would constitute a felony if committed by an adult, the juvenile must be informed of the consequences of a certification to stand trial as a criminal defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Had the State been permitted to elicit testimony regarding the line-up, it would have left the jury with the impression that the witness could positively identify the defendant despite the fact that the identification had been deemed unnecessarily suggestive and therefore unreliable. The fact that the door has been opened does not, by itself, permit all evidence to pass through. “The doctrine is to prevent prejudice and is not to be subverted into a rule for injection of prejudice.” United States v. Winston, 447 F.2d 1236, 1240 (D.C.Cir.1971). [Id. at 306.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.