State v. Holden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There are other circumstances, but, finally, the defendant’s own offer, made several times, to plead guilty, although professing innocence, was a matter peculiarly within the jury’s province to appraise. In view of all the other circumstances, in reaching its verdict, it may have disregarded the assertion of innocence and have given significance only to the offer to .plead guilty. Obviously, this is exactly what happened. The defendant’s statement was not entirely exculpatory so as to bring it within the rule applied to one of the defendants in State v. Hernandez et al., 36 N.M. 35 , 7 P.2d 930 . “Within the rule announced in State v. Clements, 31 N.M. 620 , 249 P. 1003, 1006 , and applied to the defendant, Hernandez, in State v. Hernandez, supra, we are constrained to hold the evidence, although entirely circumstantial, affords substantial support for the verdict. In the Clements case we quoted approvingly from 17 C.J. 267 (24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1882), among other things, the following: ‘A verdict-based on circumstantial evidence carries the same presumption of correctness as other verdicts, and will not be disturbed unless wholly unwarranted, even though the evidence is weak and unsatisfactory to the appellate court.’ ””

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

2. ““The case of State v. Solis, 38 N.M. 538 , 37 P.2d 539 , is cited and relied upon by the Attorney General in support of the trial court’s ruling. The authorities cited in the Solis case, State v. Perkins, 21 N.M. 135 , 153 P. 258 , and others decided later by this court, abundantly sustain the right to impeach the character of a witness, even though such witness be the accused himself, by extracting from him on cross-examination admissions of specific acts of misconduct or wrongdoing if such admissions can be thus secured. The purpose of such admissions, of course, is to affect the credibility of the witness. * * * ””

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

3. ““ * * * That the trial court is allowed a broad discretion in controlling the extent of such a cross-examination is shown by early territorial decisions as well as later ones since statehood. Territory v. De Gutman, 8 N.M. 92 , 42 P. 68 ; Borrego v. Territory, 8 N.M. 446 , 46 P. 349 ; Territory v. Chavez, 8 N.M. 528 , 45 P. 1107 ; Territory v. Garcia, 15 N.M. 538 , 110 P. 838 ; State v. Perkins, supra, [21. N.M. 135, 153 P. 258 ]; State v. Bailey, 27 N.M. 145 , 198 P. 529 ; State v. Clevenger, 27 N.M. 466 , 202 P. 687 ; State v. Schultz, 34 N.M. 214 , 279 P. 561 , and State v. Cruz, 34 N.M. 507 , 285 P. 500 .””

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