State v. Martin’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2013
12 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 Guzman v. United States · United States v. Buttorff · State v. Fox · State v. Luna · State v. Weatherford
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“and all derivatives thereof, import a conscious and unjustifiable disregard of a substantial risk that the offender's conduct may cause a certain result or may be of a certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when he consciously and unjustifiably disregards a substantial risk that such circumstances may exist[.] See, State v. Olsen, supra at 476 , and State v. Martin, 449 N.W.2d 29 (S.D.1989). As we stated in Olsen, supra at 476:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wall · State v. Olsen“The test for change of venue is prejudice in the minds of the county residents sufficient to raise a reasonable apprehension that the accused will not receive a fair and impartial trial. State v. Lohnes, 432 N.W.2d 77 (S.D.1988); State v. Brandenburg, 344 N.W.2d 702 (S.D.1984). We presume the defendant can receive a fair trial in the county where the offense was committed. Lohnes, supra; Weatherford, supra. Pretrial publicity alone is not enough to deny a fair trial or, to warrant a change of venue. Weatherford, supra; State v. Luna, 378 N.W.2d 229 (S.D.1985). Courts have acknowledged that prospective jurors will have some knowledge of pending criminal cases by the pervasive influence of the communications media. Weatherford, supra. There must be additional evidence tending to show that such publicity was so prejudicial as to prevent the defendant from receiving a fair and impartial trial in the county. Id; Brandenburg, supra; United States v. Buttorff 572 F.2d 619 (8th Cir.1978) cert. denied 437 U.S. 906 , 98 S.Ct. 3095 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1978).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Boykin v. Leapley
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.