State v. Lott’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently October 2019 · most notably State v. Ramirez (1976), State v. Casteneda (1982)
86 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 State v. Garcia · State v. Roy · State v. Shroyer · State v. Lucero · State v. Harris
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The purpose of a criminal information is to furnish the accused with such a description of the charge against him as will enable him to make a defense and to make his conviction or acquittal res judicata against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense, and to give the court reasonable information as to the nature and character of the crime charged. Ex parte Williams, 58 N.M. 37 , 265 P.2d 359 ; State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397 , 60 P.2d 646 , 110 A.L.R. 1 . The information did specifically charge the defendant with being an habitual criminal under the provisions of § 41-16-3, supra. Regard must be given to such reference to the statute in determining the sufficiency of an information. Section 41-6-7(2), N.M.S.A. 1963; State v. Shroyer, 49 N.M. 196 , 160 P.2d 444 ; Ex parte Williams, supra. C. f. State v. Ardovino, 55 N.M. 161 , 228 P.2d 947 . And, identification of the crime charged by reference to the section of the statute creating it was said in State v. Cummings, 63 N.M. 337 , 319 P.2d 946 , to be sufficient. Furthermore, the defendant may ask for and is entitled to a bill of particulars if he contends that the information is insufficient to enable him to prepare his defense or to give him any information to which he is entitled under the Constitution. A defendant failing, as here, to request a bill of particulars, if he deems the information insufficient, will not be heard on appeal to complain of a deficiency in the information. State v. Roy, supra. In addition, it is n”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Myers · State v. Turner““An appellate court only reviews adverse rulings and decisions protested below in a manner which-’ alerts the' mind of the trial court to the claimed' error. The failure of defendant to- point "out the claimed-errors and to-bring them to.-¡the attention , of the trial c.o.urt;. prevents, hjs relying on them for the first time on appeal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tapia“It will never be exercised in and of some strictly legal, technical or unsubstantial claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ramirez
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.