Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 39 N.M. 271 - State v. Simpson

State v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
January 1981
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 1981

22 state decisions

60193519401950196019701980decided

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. Kidd · State v. Luttrell · State v. Diaz · State v. Davis

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

  1. “"The appellant ... claimed to have fired in self-defense. He testified that the deceased was advancing upon him with a drawn knife, and that he (appellant) `shot to protect himself from the knife,' and only after warning the deceased to cease his attack. "Thus was put into the case the theory that appellant acted in fear or terror of being killed or done great bodily harm... . * * * * * * "The verdict ... represents the conclusion that the provocation for terror was not sufficient to justify the killing, but was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt that appellant slew in malice. "The leading case expounding the doctrine in this jurisdiction is State v. Kidd, ... . In that case there was mention of a special provocation for terror, additional to the mere physical circumstances. We do not understand, however, that the doctrine exhausted itself on the facts of that case. It has been applied in cases where there was no such special provocation. Cf. State v. Diaz, 36 N.M. 284 , 13 P.2d 883 . State v. Davis, 36 N.M. 308 , 14 P.2d 267 . "This court, in accepting this doctrine as to provocation for heat of passion, did not fail to appreciate that many close questions would be presented. We said: `The line of demarcation between a homicide which amounts to voluntary manslaughter and one which amounts to justifiable homicide in self-defense, is not always clearly defined and depends upon the facts of each case as it arises. Those facts are for the jury, under instructions from the co”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Thus was put into the case the theory that appellant acted in fear or terror of being killed or done great bodily harm... . * * * * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.