State v. James’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably State v. Nunez (1999), County of Los Alamos v. Tapia (1990)
26 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 Ashe v. Swenson · Waller v. Florida · State v. Tanton · State v. Goodson · State v. Ferris
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We also reassert the jurisdictional exception to using a lesser included offense as a bar to prosecution of the greater offense. This exception was set forth in State v. Goodson, 54 N.M. 184, 186 , 217 P.2d 262, 263 (1950), where the Court quoted the following language from 1 F. Wharton, Criminal Law § 394 (12th ed.): And a conviction of a lesser offense bars a subsequent prosecution for a greater offense, in all those cases where the lesser offense is included in the greater offense, and vice versa. But a former trial and acquittal or conviction will not be a bar to a subsequent prosecution, unless the defendant could have been convicted on the same evidence in the former trial, of the offense charged in the subsequent trial. An acquittal or conviction for a minor offense included in a greater will not bar a prosecution for the greater if the court in which the acquittal or conviction was had was without jurisdiction to try the accused for the greater offense. This exception was recognized in the specially concurring opinion of Justice Sosa in State v. Tanton, 88 N.M. 333, 337 , 540 P.2d 813, 817 (1975): I would hold that conviction bars prosecution of a greater offense, subject to one exception: If the court does not have jurisdiction to try the crime, double jeopardy cannot attach. Double jeopardy requires that a court have sufficient jurisdiction to try the charge. This exception does not conflict with the United States Supreme Court decision in Waller v. Florida, 397 U.S”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Orosco
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.