Sharma v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez (2007), Valdez v. State (2008)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 53 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 Neder v. United States · 35 Cal. 3d 547 - People v. Beeman · People v. Prettyman · 62 Ill. 2d 568 - People v. Viser · State v. Carrasco
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“accountable for the specific intent crime of another under an aiding or abetting theory of principal liability, the aider or abettor must have knowingly aided the other person with the intent that the other person commit the charged crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nevada law does not distinguish between an aider or abettor to a crime and an actual perpetrator of a crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“has been harshly criticized by most commentators as both incongruous and unjust because it imposes accomplice liability solely upon proof of foreseeability or negligence when typically a higher degree of mens rea is required of the principal. It permits criminal liability to be predicated upon negligence even when the crime involved requires a different state of mind. Having reevaluated the wisdom of this doctrine, we have concluded that its general application in Nevada to specific intent crimes is unsound precisely for that reason: it permits conviction without proof that the accused possessed the state of mind required by the statutory definition of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.