State v. Gallegos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

158 state decisions

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

1. “A. Joinder of offenses. Two or more offenses shall be joined in one complaint, indictment or information with each offense stated in a separate count, if the offenses, whether felonies or misdemeanors or both: (1) are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan; or • (2) are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts either connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan. B. Joinder of defendants. A separate complaint, indictment or information shall be filed for each defendant. Two or more defendants may be joined on motion of a party, or will be joined by the filing of a statement of joinder by the state contemporaneously with the filing of the complaints, indictments or informations charging such defendants: (1) when each of the defendants is charged with accountability for each offense included; (2) when all of the defendants are charged with conspiracy and some of the defendants are also charged with one or more offenses alleged to be in furtherance of the conspiracy; or (3) when, even if conspiracy is not charged and not. all of the defendants are charged in each count, the several offenses charged: (a) were part of a common scheme or plan; or (b) were so closely connected in respect to time, place and occasion that it would be difficult to separate proof of one charge from proof of others. C. Motion for severance. If it appears that a defendant or the state is prejudiced by a joinder of offenses or of defendan”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · State v. Gonzales

2. “Part of the proponent’s responsibility is also to cogently inform the court — whether the trial court or a court on appeal — the rationale for admitting the evidence to prove something other than propensity. In other words, more is required to sustain a ruling admitting [other-acts] evidence than the incantation of the illustrative exceptions contained in the Rule.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Gwynne · State v. Serna

3. “Even when the trial court abuses its discretion in failing to sever charges, appellate courts will not reverse unless the error actually prejudiced the defendant.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. State v. Romero · 1 N.M. Ct. App. 189 - State v. Rivera