Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 N.M. 708 - State v. McCarter

State v. McCarter’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
3
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably State v. Chamberlain (1991), State v. Jett (1991)

2 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

32019801990200020102020decided

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. Padilla · State v. Baca · State v. Beal · State v. Marquez · State v. Bazan

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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “evidence of specific acts of violence on the part of the deceased could be introduced by a defendant if there was evidence that the defendant had been informed of, or had knowledge of, those acts at the time of the homicide. Such evidence would have some bearing on the reasonableness of defendant's apprehension for his life.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “can inform the jury that it may consider further deliberations, but not that it must consider further deliberations,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In the case at bar there is nothing in the record to indicate that the communication did not affect the verdict. The burden as upon appellee to establish this fact and having failed to meet this requirement the presumption of prejudicial error must prevail. ****** “[Wjhere error occurs which, within the range of a reasonable possibility, may have affected the verdict of the jury, appellant is not required to explore the minds of the jurors in an effort to prove that it did in fact influence their verdict.””
    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.