State v. Nevares’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 43 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Mere sudden anger or heat of passion will not reduce the killing from murder to manslaughter. There must be adequate provocation. The one without the other will not suffice to effect the reduction in the grade of the offense. The two elements must concur. * * * ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ortiz · State v. Robinson

2. ““We have heretofore held with respect to the plea of self-defense in homicide cases that the standard by which must be determined the reasonableness of accused’s belief in the apparent imminence of danger is that of an ordinary person of firmness, reason, and prudence; and that the question is not to be determined from the standpoint of the accused. State v. Chesher, 22 N.M. 319 , 161 P. 1108 ; State v. Dickens, 23 N.M. 26 , 165 P. 850 ; State v. Parks, 25 N.M. 395 , 183 P. 433 . We have also held that proof of the impaired mental condition of an accused at the time of a homicide resulting from voluntary intoxication may not be employed to reduce the grade of the offense from murder in the second degree to manslaughter, unless elements of the latter offense are otherwise present. State v. Cooley, 19 N.M. 91 , 140 P. 1111 , 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 230; State v. Brigance, 31 N.M. 436 , 246 P. 897 . “So in the case at bar, the appellant’s peculiar susceptibility to excitation, anger, or passion, even though resulting from a defective mentality, which still left him capable of distinguishing between the right and the wrong of the offense with which he stood charged, cannot aid him. He must have applied to him, for determining the adequacy of provocation relied upon, the test of its effect on the ordinary man of average disposition. Measured by this test, the correctness of the trial court’s refusal to submit voluntary manslaughter is readily apparent. The appellant importuned deceased, h”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Moore

3. ““This: court is certainly not inclined to go 'in the direction of weakening in any degree, the law that a person who is not insane is responsible in law for the ordinary consequences of his acts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Young