State v. Burbank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A justice presiding in a criminal case not only has the responsibility of protecting the rights of one accused of crime hut also an equal responsibility to the people of the State to the end that justice is not thwarted by mistake or inadvertence. The presiding Justice under the circumstances of this case was well within his rights and his discretionary powers of trial procedure in permitting the State to reopen and present further evidence after the respondent’s motion for a directed verdict of not guilty had been made.” 163 A.2d 639, 643-644 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Smith · State v. Cutler

2. ““If she the respondent is guilty of manslaughter, it must be because the evidence is such that she is placed in the category of a principal to the commission of a felony as there is no proof of her physical engagement in the act which caused the injuries resulting in death. ‘A principal of the second degree is one who is present lending his countenance, encouragement or other mental aid while another does the act.’ Bishop’s Criminal Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 648 (3). In order for one to be a principal, it is necessary for him to be present, either actually or constructively. Constructive presence is sufficient to satisfy the element of ‘presence’ in a charge of aiding and abetting in constituting one a principal. English v. Matowitz, 72 N.E. (2nd) 898 (Ohio). ‘It is settled law that all who are present (either actually or constructively) at the place of a crime and are either aiding, abetting, assisting, or advising in its commission, or are present for such purpose, to the knowledge of the actual perpetrator, are principals and are equally guilty.’ State v. Holland, 67 S.E. (2nd) 272-274 (N.C.). ‘To constitute one an aider and abettor in the commission of a crime, he must be actually or constructively present at the time of its commission and render assistance or encouragement to the perpetrator.’ Howard v. Commonwealth, 200 S.W. (2nd) 148 -150 (Ky.)””

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