State v. Pena’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
July 2014
most recently cited
28 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Thomas · Richardson v. Nickolopoulos · State v. Florez · State v. Warren · State v. Sexton
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.
“`[n]o person may be convicted of an offense unless each element ... is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.' `If the defendant's ignorance or mistake makes proof of a required culpability element impossible, the prosecution will necessarily fail in its proof of the offense.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[p]ossession . . . signifies a knowing, intentional control of a designated thing, accompanied by a knowledge of its character. " State v. Pena, 178 N.J. 297, 305 , 839 A. 2d 870 (2004) (quotations omitted). Thus, an inmate cannot be found guilty of possession of a prohibited drug "unless [there is sufficient proof] that he knew or was aware, at a minimum, that he possessed [the drug].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“State v. Pena, 178 N.J. 297, 306 , 839 A. 2d 870 (2004) (quoting Sexton, supra, 160 N.J. at 100 , 733 A. 2d 1125 and Paul H. Robinson & Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 STAN. L. REV. 681, 726-27 (1983)) (alterations in original). Thus,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.