State v. Gunzelman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 120 state decisions

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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““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.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Mazurek · State v. Jones

2. “In addition to the other elements of (identify crime or crimes) the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally when he committed the crime. A person acts intentionally when he purposely does an act which the law declares to be a crime, even though he may not know that his act is unlawful. Whether the defendant acted intentionally may be inferred from all of the surrounding circumstances, such as the manner in which he acts, the means used, [and] his conduct [and any statement made by him.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Curlee · State v. Gee

3. “The superintending control over inferior courts does not limit this court to the promulgation of rules of court which have for their purpose the regulation of matters of relatively minor importance, which merely govern the everyday routine of courts and enable them to act as such. * * * We are here concerned with the more important rule of adjective law governing the trial of lawsuits and furnishing the machinery by which litigants may secure effective enforcement of their substantive rights. * * * Quoting from People ex rel. Green v. Court of Appeals of Colorado, 51 L.R.A. 111 , ([ State v. Roy, ]40 N.M. at [397] 422—423, 60 P.2d at [646] 662[1936]) that court stated: `* * * `The power of superintending control is an extraordinary power. It is hampered by no specific rules or means for its exercise. It is so general and comprehensive that its complete and full extent and use have practically hitherto not been fully and completely known and exemplified. It is unlimited, being bounded only by the exigencies which call for its exercise. As new instances of these occur it will be found able to cope with them. And, if required, the tribunals having authority to exercise it will, by virtue of it possess the power to invent, frame, and formulate new and additional means, writs, and processes whereby it may be exerted."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cohen v. State