State v. Erazo’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently November 2014 · most notably State v. Brown (1997), State v. Cofield (1992)
97 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Francis v. Franklin · Boyde v. California · Lumpkin v. Lumpkin
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f after consideration of ail the evidence you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant either purposely or knowingly caused the death of the victim then your verdict should be guilty. If, however, after consideration of all the evidence you find that the State has failed to prove each and every element of the offense your verdict should be not guilty. As I have said to you before, although the crime of manslaughter is not mentioned in the Indictment you have a right and a duty to consider that offense. A homicide which would otherwise be murder is manslaughter when the killing is committed in the heat of passion, resulting from a reasonable provocation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he [trial] court erroneously instructed the jury that it could find passion/provocation manslaughter only if it first acquitted defendant of knowing or purposeful murder. This instruction is backwards. Only a homicide that would otherwise be a knowing or purposeful murder may be reduced to manslaughter by the presence of passion/provocation. [ 126 N.J. at 125-26 , 594 A. 2d 232 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lawton · State v. Harris“The prejudicial effect of a graphic and detailed account of the victim's death might exceed its probative value. On remand, the purposes of the statute will be served if the evidence of the manner of [victim's] death is described as multiple stab wounds to the chest, lungs, and heart. [ Id. at 136 , 594 A. 2d 232 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. State v. Josephs · State v. Bey
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.