19 Md. App. 640 - Mumford v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Newton v. State (1977), Stevenson v. State (1980)
46 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 California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java · Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker · Severson v. United States · Veney v. State · 7 Md. App. 99 - Gaskins v. State
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Each person engaged in the commission of the criminal act bears legal responsibility for all consequences which naturally and necessarily flow from the act of each and every participant. Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 174 , 246 A.2d 608 (1968).... Consequently, a killing, even if unintentional, by one, in furtherance of or pursuant to the common object for which they combine, extends criminal liability for murder in the first degree to each and every accomplice. The application of this doctrine, however, is circumscribed by “causation” requirements which must be satisfied before the felony-murder rule may be applied: There is no criminal liability on the part of the others when the homicide was a fresh and independent product of the mind of one of the confederates, outside of, or foreign to, the common design. 1 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 252, at 547 (Anderson ed.1957). In sum, there must be direct causal connection between the homicide and the felony. Something more than mere coincidence in time and place between the two must be shown.; otherwise, the felony-murder rule will not be applicable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the jury could have chosen not to believe that the death occurred pursuant to the burglary, but rather from rape, fresh and independent of the common design. This factual issue should have been presented to the jury, in accordance with appellant’s exception. “The question of what is or is not a natural probable consequence is a question of fact for the trier of facts.” Jeter v. State, [ 9 Md.App. 575, 580 , 267 A.2d 319 (1970) ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In Maryland, it is settled that a trial judge must, when timely requested to do so, give advisory instructions which are supported by the evidence. Byrd v. State, 16 Md. App. 391, 400, n. 3 , 297 A. 2d 312 (1972); Gaskins v. State, 7 Md. App. 99, 105 , 253 A. 2d 759 (1969), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 1040 . Failure to give a properly requested instruction constitutes error.””
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.