State v. Day’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
123 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably State v. Duffy (1998), 1 N.M. Ct. App. 535 - State v. Tollardo (2012)
123 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 United States v. Smith · State v. Bell · State v. Rowell · State v. Noble · State v. Vallejos
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) General Rule. For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence that he has been convicted of a crime shall be admitted if elicited from him or established by public record during cross-examination but only if the crime (1) was punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of 1 year under the law under which he was convicted, and the court determines that the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the defendant, or (2) involved dishonesty or false statement, regardless of the punishment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In resolving the interrelationship of Evidence Rules 403 and 609, the intent of Congress in adopting the federal rules of evidence is not controlling. New Mexico adopted rules of evidence before Congress approved the federal rules. In addition, the variations between the New Mexico and federal rules prevent us from stating that the federal intent was New Mexico’s intent. In our opinion, New Mexico’s intent is ascertained by considering two New Mexico evidentiary rules. Our rule, a general one, was that the trial court had discretion in the admission or exclusion of evidence. * * * [Tjhis general rule is not limited to criminal cases; it applies to any type of case, and all forms of evidence. This general rule of evidence is reflected in Evidence Rule 403. A second rule, which is a specific application of the general rule, applies to the cross-examination of a witness concerning prior convictions * * *. This specific application [the balancing provision] was included by the amendment to Evidence Rule (a)(1). The amendment which brought the pre-existing specific rule into the rules of evidence cannot be considered as removing the applicability of the general rule [which] has been reaffirmed subsequent to adoption of the amendment. [Emphasis in original.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lenz v. Chalamidas“that the evidence of guilt was so overwhelming that there is no reasonable probability that the misconduct contributed to the conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.