State v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 1991 · most notably State v. McAfee (1967), State v. Sandoval (1977)
28 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 Commonwealth Ex Rel. Moszczynski v. Ashe · In Re Chapman · State v. Quintana · State v. Weddle · 58 Wash. 2d 816 - State v. La Porte
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.
“a * * * •pjjg true test of whether one criminal offense has merged in another * * * is whether one crime necessarily involves another, ás, for example, rape involves fornication, and- robbery involves-both assault and larceny. * * * If a defendant commits a burglary and while in the burglarized dwelling he commits the crimes of rape or kidnapping, his crimes do not merge, for neither of them is necessarily involved in the other. When one of two criminal acts committed successively is not a necessary ingredient of the other, there may be a conviction and sentence for both. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. McAfee“However, if the several offenses are the same, as where they arise out of the same transaction, and were committed at the same time, and were part of a continuous criminal act, and inspired by the same criminal intent, which is an essential element of each offense, they are susceptible of only one punishment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Maestas““The test of whether one criminal offense has merged in another is not, as defendant contends, whether the two criminal acts are successive steps in the same transaction but whether one offense necessarily involves the other. ;¡i ‡ * »”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Everitt
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.