State v. Cortez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “THE COURT: Apparently the real issue raised by the Motion that Counts 1 and 2 is whether or not the boy, ..., who is the only one here to give us any evidence, was able to give us opinions, or not even opinion, simply to state flatly that he got marijuana. Now, that’s all you have in the case. * * % That he had smoked marijuana and had had some experience with it. * * * He never expressed any explicit opinion, that he saw the stuff, knew what it was, he tested it and smelled it, tasted it or did anything else other than he went for marijuana and that’s what he got. All conclusionary. The problem is that in the early days of the law development in all of this so-called esoteric substances that were prohibited. What we generally require is that you establish what the stuff was. Some definite establishing of what it was. Gradually they allowed lay persons with a little bit of experience [to] testify on an opinion basis what it was. But in recent years the stuff has become so common and generally used that today without any explicit testing or without dealing with opinion evidence at all, it is just like money. Anybody can- say it was money; anybody could say it was coffee or tobacco and you don't call them on it. It is not any longer in that realm of esoteric opinion, that requires experts. Now they let anybody testify.... I think a simple statement, that’s what it was, like saying that the car was red. That’s an opinion, stated in the form statement of facts. He could say that ”

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

2. “1. Was probable cause demonstrated for two warrants to search the house at 919 Encanto Circle? 2. Was the verdict regarding intent to distribute cocaine supported by substantial evidence? 3. Was the evidence of distribution of marijuana competent and substantial? 4. Was the charge and jury instruction regarding receiving stolen property so defective as to constitute fundamental error? 5. Was the trial court’s refusal to grant a mistrial, upon the State’s key witness’s statement that he heard defendant belonged to the “Mafia,” reversible error?”

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