State v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Under the facts here, the state failed to satisfactorily demonstrate due diligence in attempting to procure the attendance of the unavailable witness or to offer evidence that appropriate steps had been taken to attempt to secure her presence for trial. The burden is upon the state to establish the unavailability of a prosecution witness whose hearsay statements are sought to be admitted into evidence. Ohio v. Roberts, [ 448 U.S. 56 , 100 S.Ct. 2531 , 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980)]. Mere absence of a witness from the jurisdiction is not sufficient grounds for dispensing with defendant's right of confrontation. State v. Adrian, 51 Haw. 125 , 453 P.2d 221 (1969); see also State v. Waits, 92 N.M. 275 , 587 P.2d 53 (App. 1978). "A finding of a violation of the right to confront a witness does not, however, automatically require reversal of defendant's conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); cf. United States v. Albuquerque, 538 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1976).... Even where an error is of constitutional dimension, it may not mandate reversal if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Richter, 93 N.M. 55 , 596 P.2d 268 (App.), cert. quashed, 93 N.M. 8 , 595 P.2d 1203 (1979). "The trial court's admission of the objectionable testimony may be sustained on the ground that statements of the alleged victim were cumulative of other evidence, including admissions of defendant himself.... Where defendant's own testimony independently establishe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 799 So. 2d 966 - Flowers v. State

2. “Defendant’s assertion that the trial judge’s comments resulted in the intimidation of Miss Saiz, causing her to change her testimony against defendant, is a matter of first impression in this jurisdiction. Defendant contends the court overstepped the neutral role assigned to trial judges and impermissibly intruded upon the traditional functions assigned to advocates. Defendant relies upon State v. Caputo, 94 N.M. 190 , 608 P.2d 166 (App.1980) and In Re Will of Callaway, 84 N.M. 125 , 500 P.2d 410 (1972). The test of whether a trial judge has acted impermissibly in intimidating a witness turns on whether the judge’s comments were so severe that they resulted in the witness’s refusal to testify or to totally change testimony. Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 , 93 S.Ct. 351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972); McNutt v. United States, 267 F. 670 (8th Cir.1920); see also Annot. 127 A.L.R. 1385 (1940). A trial judge is not required to sit idly by and allow perjury to be committed without bringing it to the attention of proper authorities. State v. Brown, 124 Ariz. 97 , 602 P.2d 478 (1979). A judge has a responsibility for safeguarding both the rights of the accused and the rights of the public in the administration of criminal justice. ABA Standards for Criminal Justice, § 6-1.1 (2d ed.1980). However, in a jury trial, the court must not in any manner, by demeanor or otherwise, comment upon the weight to be given certain evidence or indicate an opinion as to the credibility of a witness. See N.M.U.J”

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

3. “A finding of a violation of the right to confront a witness does not, however, automatically require reversal of defendant's conviction. Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); cf. United States v. Albuquerque, 538 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1976).... Even where an error is of constitutional dimension, it may not mandate reversal if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Richter, 93 N.M. 55 , 596 P.2d 268 (App.), cert. quashed, 93 N.M. 8 , 595 P.2d 1203 (1979).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 799 So. 2d 966 - Flowers v. State