State v. Melendrez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the information filed by the district attorney must substantially charge the crime stated in the complaint filed with the justice of the peace ... or one which is included or embraced within it, and further contends that in case the crime charged in the information is not the one stated in the complaint ... or one included therein, the district court cannot over the objection of the defendant, legally proceed to try him for the offense charged in the information])] ****** It appears that there are three views, influenced no doubt by the statutes of the various jurisdictions. 1. The information must conform to the preliminary proceedings and charge an offense which is substantially the same as, or which is included in, that disclosed by the preliminary examination. [Hereinafter View No. 1.] 2. On the other hand, some authorities require the information to conform with the complaint filed in the magistrate’s court. [Hereinafter View No. 2.] 3. Still other authorities require the information to conform with the commitment or order holding the accused to answer. [Hereinafter View No. 3.] ****** [W]e think the ... view numbered 3, supra, is the more reasonable and acceptable view under our statutes, and without expressing an opinion as to whether some other degree of conformity between the preliminary proceedings and the information will suffice, we hold that on the present record, where the crime charged in the complaint in the magistrate’s court is kindred to that to which the a”

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

2. “It must be assumed that when the constitutional amendment was proposed in 1923 and adopted at the election held November 4, 1924, providing that punishment of capital, felonious or infamous crimes might be presented by information filed by the district attorney or the attorney general or their deputies, provided the person informed against had previously had a preliminary examination before an examining magistrate, the preliminary examination and the relation of the state’s attorneys thereto were understood to be such as were then in vogue under existing laws of the state. See Chase v. Lujan, 48 N.M. 261 , 149 P.2d 1003 .”

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

3. ““ * * * if it appear that an offense has been committed, the punishment of which is not within the jurisdiction of the magistrate as a trial judge, and there is probable cause to believe the prisoner guilty thereof, the magistrate, without the necessity of further complaint, or further preliminary examination, shall commit or bail the accused to appear at the next term of the district court * (Emphasis added.)”

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