People v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently December 2014
22 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 In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church · State v. Mastropetre · People v. Hardin · People v. Pickett
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.
“To constitute a crime there must be the joint operation of an act forbidden by law and a culpable mental state of the defendant. A culpable mental state means with specific intent and knowingly, as these terms are explained in this instruction. The culpable mental state is just as much an element of the crime as the act. The culpable mental state must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as a matter of fact, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. The culpable mental state may be manifested by the circumstance connected with the perpetration of the offense and the sound mind and discretion of the defendant. Commission of the act alone does not warrant the presumption that the defendant had the requisite culpable mental state. A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstance exists. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of his conduct, when he is aware that his conduct is practically certain to cause the result. Where a crime consists of an act combined with a specific intent, as does the crime of Assault in the Second Degree, in Count I, the specific intent is just as much an element of the crime as is the act. Specific intent is a state of mind voluntarily and wilfully to do or perform an act which will effect a certain result. Such an act must not be the result of accident or other innocent reason. The defendant’s consc”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Hart“Evidence of specific instances of the victim’s prior or subsequent sexual conduct ... shall be presumed to be irrelevant except: [[Image here]] (b) Evidence of specific instances of sexual activity showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, disease, or any similar evidence of sexual intercourse offered for the purpose of showing that the act or acts charged were or were not committed by the defendant.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Meis“[W]hen a mens rea element is prescribed in the statute defining an offense, the court should always include the mens rea element in the definition of the crime instruction. If it does not do so, unless from all the instructions taken as a whole the jury is clearly instructed as to the prescribed mens rea element, the instructions are constitutionally deficient.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Mattas
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.