State v. Ellenberger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

60 state decisions

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

1. “The doctrine of merger is based upon the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution. The scope of the double jeopardy clause was outlined by the Supreme Court in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969): That guarantee [against double jeopardy] has been said to consist of three separate constitutional protections. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. (Footnotes omitted and emphasis added.) * * * * * * We note, however, that this question is primarily one of legislative intent. Multiple punishments run afoul of the double jeopardy clause only where the Legislature has not authorized multiple punishments. See United States v. DiFrancesco, [ 449 U.S. 117 ], 101 S.Ct. 426 , 66 L.Ed.2d 328 (1980); Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 , 100 S.Ct. 1432 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980); Ex parte Lange, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 , 21 L.Ed. 872 (1874). Mr. Justice Blackmun, concurring in Whalen, 445 U.S. at 697 , 100 S.Ct. at 1441 , stated, “[t]he only function the Double Jeopardy Clause serves in cases challenging multiple punishments is to prevent the prosecutor from bringing more charges, and the sentencing court from imposing greater pu”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Edwards

2. “into phrases the Legislature used without limitation. We hold that a minor can be prosecuted under Section 30-6-3, and can be convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. Our conclusion would be no different if we assumed, for the sake of argument, that the statute is ambiguous and that statutory interpretation is appropriate. We disagree with the Court of Appeals reading of the statute, the precedents, and the Legislature's intent. First, the fact that the offense in question was placed in Article 6 of the Criminal Code among”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Pitts

3. “Making or permitting false public voucher consists of knowingly, intentionally or willfully making, causing to be made or permitting to be made, a false material statement or forged signature upon any public voucher, or invoice supporting a public voucher, with intent that the voucher or invoice shall be relied upon for the expenditure of public money-”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Whitaker