253 N.J. Super. 13 - State v. ML’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 270 N.J. Super. 31 - State v. Garland (1994), State v. Rheaume (2004)
33 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Rhode Island v. Innis · Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. · Sandstrom v. Montana · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny person having a legal duty for the care of a child or who has assumed responsibility for the care of a child who causes the child harm that would make the child an abused or neglected child as defined in [N.J.S.A.] 9:6-1, [N.J.S.A.] 9:6-3 and ... [ N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.21 ] is guilty of a crime of the second degree.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e do not read [ N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4(a) ] as calling for a demonstration of actual physical harm.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“POINT I: BECAUSE THE STATE OBTAINED DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT IN A QUASI-CRIMINAL CIVIL FORFEITURE ACTION POST-INDICTMENT, WITHOUT ADMINISTERING MIRANDA RIGHTS, AND THROUGH COERCION BY THREATENING TO PERMANENTLY DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS PROPERTY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RULING THAT THE STATEMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE IN THE STATE'S CASE-IN-CHIEF DURING DEFENDANT'S RELATED CRIMINAL TRIAL POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING TESTIMONY AT TRIAL AS TO AN ALLEGED STATEMENT MADE BY DEFENDANT WITHOUT FIRST CONDUCTING A HEARING TO DETERMINE ADMISSIBILITY, AS REQUIRED BY N.J.R.E. 104(C). THE ERROR WAS COMPOUNDED WHEN THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AND REFUSED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT A BRIEF ADJOURNMENT TO CALL A WITNESS TO REFUTE THE TESTIMONY POINT III: BY INCORPORATING EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT TRIAL INTO THE QUESTIONS POSED TO THE NARCOTICS EXPERT, THE STATE IMPERMISSIBLY INTRODUCED EXPERT OPINION TESTIMONY THAT INVADED THE PROVINCE OF THE JURY (PARTIALLY RAISED BELOW) POINT IV: THE TRIAL COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS ON UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN ELIMINATED AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE CRIME AND THUS DENIED DEFENDANT THE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW (PARTIALLY RAISED BELOW) POINT V: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL THE STATE TO REVEAL THE IDENTITY OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT AS THAT INFORMANT'S IDENTITY WAS ESSENTIAL IN DEFENDANT'S CHALLENGE TO THE SEARCH WARRANT POINT VI: THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE. ADDITIONALLY, ”
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.