State v. Martes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. “Burglary and the underlying offenses such as theft have consistently been treated as separate and distinct offenses. Accordingly, it has been held that under appropriate circumstances consecutive sentences for burglary and third degree sexual contact are appropriate. State v. Mosch, 214 N.J.Super. 457 , 519 A. 2d 937 (App.Div.1986). In addition, it has been held that an acquittal on the charge of theft does not require a conviction of burglary to be set aside since burglary requires only an entry with a purpose to commit an offense irrespective of whether an offense is actually committed. State v. Mangrella, 214 N.J.Super. 437 , 519 A. 2d 926 (App.Div.1986). Burglary and robbery do not merge. The crime of burglary is complete upon entry into a structure unlawfully for the purpose of committing an offense once inside. State v. Pyron, 202 N.J.Super. 502 , 495 A. 2d 467 (App.Div.1985). If, in addition to the hostile entry, the intended offense is committed, then the offense itself is separately punishable. Id. at 504 , 495 A. 2d 467 . The legislature considered and specifically rejected a recommendation that a person could not be convicted both for burglary and for the offense it was his purpose to commit after the entry. See Cannel, Title 2C, New Jersey Criminal Code Annotated, 1992-1993 edition, comments one and seven and State v. Pyron, supra, at 504 , 495 A. 2d 467 . [ Martes, supra, 266 N.J.Super. at 121 , 628 A. 2d 817 .]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 330 N.J. Super. 424 - State v. Pantusco