State v. Sandoval’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently June 2001 · most notably Swafford v. State (1991), State v. Manus (1979)
74 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 Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Morningside Renewal Council, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission · State v. Vogenthaler · State v. Tanton · State v. McAfee
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Merger” is the name applied to the concept of multiple punishment when multiple charges are brought in a single trial. Tanton I, [State v. Tanton, 88 N.M. 5 , 536 P.2d 269 (Ct.App.1975)]. Merger is an aspect of double jeopardy; it is concerned with whether more than one offense has occurred. See 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure, § 33 (1957). The concept is applied to prevent a person from being punished twice for the same offense. State v. McAfee, 78 N.M. 108 , 428 P.2d 647 (1967). The test of whether one criminal offense has merged in another is * * * “whether one offense necessarily involves the other”. State v. Martinez, 77 N.M. 745 , 427 P.2d 260 (1967); State v. Dosier, 88 N.M. 32 , 536 P.2d 1088 (Ct.App.1975); Tanton I, supra. In determining whether one offense “necessarily involves” another offense so that merger applies, the decisions have looked to the definitions of the crimes to see whether the elements are the same. State v. McAfee, supra; State v. Ranne, [ 80 N.M. 188 , 453 P.2d 209 (Ct.App.1969)]; State v. Everitt, 80 N.M. 41 , 450 P.2d 927 (Ct.App.1969).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Maes““Merger” is the name applied to the concept of multiple punishment when multiple charges are brought in a single trial. Tanton I ... [State v. Tanton, 88 N.M. 333 , 540 P.2d 813 (1975) ] Merger is an aspect of double jeopardy; it is concerned with whether more than one offense has occurred. The test of whether one criminal offense has merged in another is not “whether two criminal acts are successive steps in the same transaction ... but whether one offense necessarily involves the other.” [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Singleton“Robbery consists of the theft of anything of value from the person of another or from the immediate control of another, by use or threatened use of force or violence. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gammil
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.