214 N.J. Super. 437 - State v. Mangrella’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2005 · most notably 110 Wash. 2d 32 - State v. Ng (1988), State v. Haliski (1995)
3 federal appellate · 44 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 Ashe v. Swenson · Brown v. Ohio · Ohio v. Johnson · State v. Roth · State v. Dively
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person is guilty of burglary, a crime of the second degree, if with purpose to commit an offense therein, the actor enters a structure, unless he is licensed or privileged to enter. And if in the course of committing the offense, he purposely, knowingly or recklessly inflicts, attempts to inflict or threatens to inflict bodily injury on anyone or, alternatively, if he is armed with a deadly weapon. Because you can find the defendant guilty of burglary, a crime of the second degree, you must first find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all of the following elements: One, defendant entered the second-floor apartment of Theresa Hussein, located at 153 Lewis Street at the time and place charged in count five of the indictment. Two, defendant entered the apartment without permission. Three, defendant entered the apartment with the purpose to commit an offense therein. And, four, the defendant did purposely, knowingly or recklessly inflict bodily injury upon Patricia Marquez and/or Theresa Hussein or he threatened to inflict bodily injury upon them or alternatively, defendant was armed with a deadly weapon. First, the State must prove that the defendant entered the apartment without permission.... Next, the State must prove that when defendant entered the apartment, he did so with the purpose to commit any one or more of the crimes alleged in this case, including kidnapping, aggravated assault, terroristic threats, theft or contempt of court. (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction that the defendant committed a ei-ime constitutes a prior conviction, although sentence or the execution thereof was suspended, provided that the time to appeal has expired and that the defendant was not pardoned on the ground of innocence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Haliski“[A] defendant must be deemed 'previously convicted' when a judgment is entered prior to sentencing, provided there is no pending appeal, irrespective of the chronology of the offenses.”
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.