Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 N.M. 348 - State v. Johnson

State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
October 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably 1 N.M. Ct. App. 535 - State v. Tollardo (2012), State v. Duran (2006)

2 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

600200420102020decided

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 Chapman v. State of California · Crawford v. Washington · Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Brecht v. Abrahamson · Arizona v. Fulminante

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

  1. “These factors include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to [the defendant's] conviction.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] reviewing court [must] be guided not by its own assessment of the guilt or innocence of the defendant—a matter which is irrelevant to the question whether the constitutional error might have contributed to the jury's verdict—but rather by an objective reconstruction of the record of evidence the jury either heard or should have heard absent the error and a careful examination of the error's possible impact on that evidence.”
    2 later decisions 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.