State v. Lucero’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently March 2004 · most notably State v. Gutierrez (1993), State v. Lott (1963)
66 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 Carroll v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · State v. Garcia · State v. Romero · 174 Cal. App. 2d 438 - People v. Brajevich
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The doctrine of fundamental error has its place in this jurisdiction. State v. Garcia, 19 N.M. 414 , 143 P. 1012, 1014 . But the errors complained of must be such as go to the foundation of the case, and which deprive the defendant of rights essential to his defense. State v. Sena, 54 N.M. 213 , 219 P.2d 287 . The discretion residing in this court to apply the doctrine is not to be exercised in aid of strictly legal, technical or unsubstantial claims. Where substantial justice has been done, the parties must have taken and preserved exceptions in the lower court before this court will notice them on appeal. State v. Garcia, supra; State v. Smith, 51 N.M. 328 , 184 P.2d 301 ."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Alingog · State v. Lott““ * * * This case is within the well-established rule that a warrant is not required for the search of a movable vehicle if the officers have reasonable cause to believe that the automobile contains contraband or stolen goods. * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Appellant’s defense was drunkenness, and he contends there can be no reconciliation of the instruction on lack of intent because of intoxication, and the instruction given which states that voluntary drunkenness is no excuse or justification for crime. There is no merit to this contention. Voluntary intoxication alone is not a defense to a charge of larceny. State v. Roybal, 66 N.M. 416 , 349 P.2d 332 . But if a defendant claims he was so intoxicated as to be unable to form the necessary intent, the question of intent is a matter for the jury. The jury was so instructed.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Saiz
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.