State v. Sena’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently April 2010
16 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 State v. Noble · State v. Ortiz · State v. Upton · State v. Madrigal · In re Smith
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Territory v. Kennedy [ 15 N.M. 556 , 110 P. 854 (1910)], and State v. Folk, [ 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 (1952)], point out that the right to a jury trial on the question of competency to stand trial depended on the 1855-56 statute [Laws 1855-56, page 106; codified at § 41-13-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 1964), repealed by 1967 N.M. Laws, ch. 231, § 1], which is quoted in State v. Folk, [supra]. The statute is not a model of clarity. State v. Noble [supra] and State v. Chavez [ 88 N.M. 451 , 541 P.2d 631 (Ct.App.1975)], were of the view that a right to a jury trial existed on the issue of competency to stand trial, if by pretrial motion, there was reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s competency to stand trial. Rule of Crim.Proc. 35(b)(2)(i), as amended in 1978, takes a more restricted view. That rule permits the competency to stand trial issue, when presented by pretrial motion, to be decided by the trial court or, in the trial court’s discretion, by a jury. We cannot reconcile the amended rule with State v. Noble, [supra] and State v. Chavez, [supra] We recognize, however, that the 1855-56 statute is ambiguous, requiring interpretation, and that language in Territory v. Kennedy [supra], supports the approach taken in the amended rule. [See 15 N.M. at 559 , 110 P. at 855.] See also language in connection with the motion for rehearing in State v. Upton [ 60 N.M. 205 , 290 P.2d 440 (1955)]. Although amended Rule of Crim. Proc. 35(b)(2)(i) is not applicable in this case, the ap”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Nelson
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.