Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 N.E.2d 14 - Jaske v. State

Jaske v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
6
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Fleener v. State (1995), Wickizer v. State (1993)

32 state decisions

25019891990200020102020decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Ashton v. Anderson · Elmore v. State · Reid v. State · Wagner v. State

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

  1. “Defendant asserts that the actions of the victim in procuring the weapon and inviting the defendant to shoot him constitutes consent to the shooting and as such is a good defense to the crime of aggravated battery. We cannot agree. It is generally conceded that a state enacts criminal statutes making certain violent acts crimes for at least two reasons: One reason is to protect the persons of its citizens; the second, however, is to prevent a breach of the public peace. State v. Seal, 76 N.M. 461 , 415 P.2d 845 (1966). While we entertain little sympathy for either the victim's absurd actions or the defendant's equally unjustified act of pulling the trigger, we will not permit the defense of consent to be raised in such cases. Whether or not the victims of crimes have so little regard for their own safety as to request injury, the public has a stronger and overriding interest in preventing and prohibiting acts such as these. We hold that consent is not a defense to the crime of aggravated battery, § 40A-3-5, supra, irrespective of whether the victim invites the act and consents to the battery.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “substantial likelihood that the questioned evidence contributed to the conviction”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “consent is not a defense to the charge of battery,”
    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.