State v. Puga’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably State v. Kendall (1977), Quinn v. Young (2015)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 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 Morissette v. United States · McGautha v. California · State v. Paris · State v. Austin · State v. Lopez
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The material allegations of the indictment necessary to be proven to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt before you can find the defendant guilty are that at the county of Bernalillo in the State of New Mexico on the 17th day of October, 1973, the defendant did commit a theft of things of value, to wit: monies and other items of value from the immediate control of Clarence Garcia, 3900 Tulane, NE, Apartment 36, Albuquerque, New Mexico, by use or threatened use of force or violence and while armed with a deadly weapon, to wit: a firearm. “Criminal intent is more than an intentional act; it is a mental state of conscience [sic] wrongdoing. It is an essential element of the crime with which defendant is charged and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. “Intent is seldom susceptible of direct proof and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. “You are instructed that an accomplice is one who knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent with the principal offender, unites in the commission of the crime. “Mere presence at the scene of a crime will not support a conviction as either a principal or an aider or abettor. Presence must be accompanied by some outward manifestation or expression of approval. To be an aider or abettor, one must share the criminal intent of the principal. There must be a community of purpose, a partnership, in the unlawful undertaking.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mazurek“`theft' means a taking `with intent to deprive the rightful owner' of that which is taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ortiz v. State“must inform the jury of any intent which is an element of the crime charged.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ortiz v. State
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.