Black v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2023
21 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 Pinkerton v. United States · San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez · United States v. Mitchell · Jahnke v. State · Neilson 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[¶ 44] “It is ... well established that a trial court has a duty to instruct a jury on the general principles of law applicable to the ease at issue. A trial court is given wide latitude in instructing the jury and, as long as the instructions correctly state the law and the entire charge covers the relevant issue, reversible error will not be found. Instructions must be considered as a whole, and individual instructions, or parts of them, should not be singled out and considered in isolation. Ogden v. State, 2001 WY 109, ¶ 8 , 34 P.3d 271, ¶ 8 (Wyo.2001); Coburn v. State, 2001 WY 30, ¶ 9 , 20 P.3d 518, ¶ 9 (Wyo.2001); Merchant v. State, 4 P.3d 184, 190 (Wyo.2000). Jury instructions shall not be ruled defective absent a showing that the instructions confused or misled the jury as to the proper principles of law and prejudiced the defendant. Lane v. State, 12 P.3d 1057 , 1061 (Wyo.2000). Prejudicial error must be demonstrated, and prejudice will not be demonstrated unless the instruction confused or misled the jury with respect to the proper principles of law. Wilson v. State, 14 P.3d 912, 916 (Wyo.2000). Further, a failure to instruct properly on an element of a crime does not constitute plain error where evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming. Id.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Widdison v. State · Siler v. State“confused or misled the jury with respect to the proper principles of law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Janpol v. State · Walker v. State“although a defendant's presence at the time and place of the crime does not establish guilt as an aider, abettor, or principal, an intent to engage in the criminal venture may be shown by the relationship of the parties and by their conduct before and after the offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Patterson v. State · Rawle v. State
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.