State v. Marchesano’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Arizona courts have long acknowledged that joint participation in a general felonious plan is enough to hold an accomplice liable as principal for any crime committed in the execution of the plan---- In State v. Collins, [ 111 Ariz. 303 , 528 P.2d 829 (1974)], our supreme court employed a foreseeability standard to uphold the first degree felony murder conviction of an accomplice. The court stated, “The killing [by the defendant’s armed accomplice] was part of a chain of events which the defendant’s deliberate acts in perpetuating the robbery had set in motion and was a risk reasonably to be foreseen.” 111 Ariz. at 307 , 528 P.2d at 833 .”

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

2. “[p]remeditation means that the defendant acts with either the intention or the knowledge that he will kill another human being, when such intention or knowledge precedes the killing by a length of time to permit reflection. The time for reflection must be longer than the time required merely to form the intent or knowledge that conduct will cause death. However, no appreciable length of time must elapse between the formation of the intent to kill and the act; they may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. An act is not done with premeditation if it is the instant effect of a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.”

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

3. “The defendant is criminally responsible for everything done by an accomplice which was a probable and natural consequence of the common plan. The defendant need not act out each element of the charged offense. The acts of one accomplice are imputed to all. However, there must be proof that this defendant had knowledge that a criminal act was intended and that the defendant’s actions were taken with the intent that a criminal act be promoted or facilitated and that the offense committed was a reasonable natural and foreseeable .consequence.”

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