State v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 2021
7 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 Francis v. Franklin · State v. Dunn · Whitehead v. American Motors Sales Corp. · State v. Olsen · State v. Sorensen
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Possession of property recently stolen, if not satisfactorily explained, is ordinarily a circumstance from which you may reasonably draw the inference and find, in light of the surrounding circumstances shown by the evidence in the case, that the person in possession of the stolen property stole the property and knew that the property was stolen. Thus, if you find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt (1) that the defendant was in possession of property, (2) that the property was stolen, (3) that such possession was not too remote in point of time from the theft, and (4) that no satisfactory explanation of such possession has been given or appears from the evidence, then you may infer from those facts and find that the defendant stole the property and knew the property was stolen.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Carlson · State v. Crowley“Possession of property recently stolen, when no satisfactory explanation of such possession is made, shall be deemed prima facie evidence that the person in possession stole the property.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Carlson · State v. Crowley“[W]e may not interfere with a jury verdict unless upon review of the entire record, there emerges error of sufficient gravity to indicate that a defendant’s rights were prejudiced in a substantial manner.” (quotations and citation omitted)). The trial court’s instruction forced the State to meet a higher mens rea standard than required under the statute, and because the principles underlying”
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.