State v. Estrada’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably State v. Wildgrube (2003), State v. Gonzales (2002)
28 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 Wayte v. United States · United States v. Armstrong · United States v. Batchelder · United States v. Batchelder · United States v. Berrios
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his prior convictions for embezzlement, conspiracy to commit embezzlement, and harboring a felon.... We conclude the trial court acted within its discretion in allowing the State to introduce evidence of Defendant’s prior felony convictions. Relying on State v. Tave, 1996-NMCA-056 , ¶ ¶ 12-22, 122 N.M. 29 , 919 P.2d 1094 , Defendant argues that whether he was convicted of a felony is irrelevant to the crime of retaliation against a witness, and therefore, any evidence of his prior felony convictions was inadmissible under Rule 11-402, NMRA 2001. A similar argument was made and rejected by this Court in State v. Warsop, 1998-NMCA-033, ¶ 19 , 124 N.M. 683 , 954 P.2d 748 . The question in Tave was whether the name of a prior felony was admissible for purposes of proving a felon-in-possession charge. In War-sop, we held that Tave is distinguishable from cases involving the charge of retaliation against a witness because a felon-in-possession charge arises from an incident wholly unrelated to the predicate felony. By contrast, in cases involving retaliation against a witness, the prior felony offense is closely intertwined with the retaliation charge because the victim of the retaliation was also the witness who reported the felony in the underlying case. In this case, Doty, the victim of the retaliation, was also the chief witness who testified against Defendant in the case resulting in his convictions for embez”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McGee“Where the facts are undisputed, we review de novo the legal question whether the prosecutor improperly commented on Defendant's silence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gutierrez
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.