211 N.J. Super. 699 - State v. McBride’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2000
11 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 State v. Roth · State v. Carter · 201 N.J. Super. 378 - State v. Martelli · 204 N.J. Super. 409 - State v. Hickman · 158 N.J. Super. 517 - State v. Singleton
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant correctly observes that the trial judge did not expressly find that he was "clearly convinced that the aggravating factors substantially outweigh the mitigating factors" as required by N.J.S.A. 2C:43-6(b) before a period of parole ineligibility may be imposed. A year after this sentence was imposed, we emphasized the need for trial judges to make that finding. State v. Martelli, 201 N.J. Super. 378, 385 [ 493 A. 2d 70 ] (App.Div. 1985). Our concern, however, was that trial judges articulate the relative weight they assign to the aggravating and mitigating factors in order that we may be assured that they followed the statutory guidelines, not that judges ritualistically recite a statutory formula. Where, as here, the judge could properly have found, as he did, that there are no mitigating factors, it is clear that the aggravating factors substantially predominate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A prosecuting attorney may ask a jury to draw an adverse inference from a defendant's failure to call a witness only if the trial judge first has found, out of the presence of the jury, that the witness is within the defendant's power to produce and that the witness's testimony would be superior to that already utilized in respect to the fact to be proved. [ Id. See also State v. Clawans, 38 N.J. 162, 171-72 , 183 A. 2d 77 (1962) (the party requesting the charge must first advise the court of that intention, outside the presence of the jury).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“clearly convinced that the aggravating factors substantially outweigh the mitigating factors”
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.