Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 147 N.M. 542 - State v. Flores

State v. Flores’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
3
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

81 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Manson v. Brathwaite · State v. Rojo · State v. Cunningham · State v. Garcia · State v. Woodward

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

  1. ““Deliberate intention” is intention that is “arrived at or determined upon as a result of careful thought and the weighing of the consideration for and against the proposed course of action.” [State u] Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We have emphasized that circumstantial evidence alone can amount to substantial evidence. Id. ¶ 29; see also [State v] Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 23 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 . Indeed, “[i]ntent is subjective and is almost always inferred from other facts in the case.... ” [State v.] Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶¶ 7-8 , 140 N.M. 94 , 140 P.3d 515 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“Deliberate intent may be inferred from the particular circumstances of the killing....”).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[H]ow much time passed between the startling event and the statement, and whether, in that time, the declarant had an opportunity for reflection and fabrication; how much pain, confusion, nervousness, or emotional strife the declarant was experiencing at the time of the statement; whether the statement was self-serving; and whether the statement was made in response to an inquiry.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Our substantial evidence review of the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction must take into account both the jury’s fundamental role as factfinder in our system of justice and the independent responsibility of the courts to ensure that the jury’s decisions are supportable by evidence in the record, rather than mere guess or conjecture.”
    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.