People v. Olds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘To be an accomplice one must knowingly, voluntarily, and with common intent unite with the principal offender in the commission of the crime.’ (People v. Lamb, 134 Cal.App. 2d 582, 585 [ 285 P.2d 941 ]; People v. Shaw, 17 Cal.2d 778, 799 [ 112 P.2d 241 ].) This requires consent, which is defined in People v. Dong Pok Yip, 164 Cal. 143 , at page 147 [ 127 P. 1031 ] as follows: ‘Consent, in law, means a voluntary agreement by a person in the possession and exercise of sufficient mentality to make an intelligent choice, to do something proposed by another. “Consent” differs very materially from “assent.” The former implies positive action and always involves submission. The latter means mere passivity- or subImssion, which does not include consent.' In People v. Westek, 31 Cal.2d 469 [ 190 P.2d 9 ], which concerned a violation of the same section of the Penal Code here involved, the court pointed out (p. 475) that ‘The jury apparently accorded full credit to the boys’ testimony that they did not “willingly” join in the criminal acts, and so concluded that their part therein constituted an “assent” rather than a “consent.” Consequently, the boys, by virtue of the evidence accepted by the jury as true, were not accomplices and corroboration of their testimony was not necessary. ’ In People v. Featherstone, 67 Cal.App.2d 793 [ 155 P.2d 685 ], which also involved a violation of this same code section, the court observed (p. 796) that ‘If he (a fifteen-year-old boy) was not an acc”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 264 Cal. App. 2d 271 - People v. Anderson