Stone v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The question on which rests a decision of the case is whether the evidence adduced by the Commonwealth shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused aided and abetted in the commission of the crime charged in the indictment, or shared in the criminal intent of the principal, if an offense was committed. ‘ ‘ This court, in numerous decisions, has defined the status of an aider and abettor. In Triplett v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 577, 586 , 127 S. E. 486, 489 , the accepted rule is stated thus: ‘To constitute one an aider and abettor, he must be guilty of some overt act, or he must share the criminal intent of the principal or the party who commits the crime.’ “In Creasy v. Commonwealth, 166 Va. 721, 725 , 186 S. E. 63, 64 , Mr. Justice Chinn said: ‘The rule as to what constitutes an aider and abetter is well settled in Virginia. * * * “ ‘ “In Rasnake’s Case (Rasnake v. Commonwealth), 135 Va. 677, 710 , 115 S. E. 543 , Sims, P., cites with approval Kemp’s Case (Kemp v. Commonwealth), 80 Va. 443 , and Wooden’s Case (Wooden v. Commonwealth), 117 Va. 930 , 86 S. E. 305 , Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1032, where it is held that the settled rule is that mere presence and consent alone are not sufficient to constitute one an aider and abettor in the commission of a crime.” “ ‘In Harold v. Commonwealth, 147 Va. 617 , 136 S. E. 658, 660 , Judge Burks said: “The mere presence of a party when a crime is committed and his consent thereto is no crime, if he was not aiding, abetting, counselling or ad”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hamilton v. Commonwealth