Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 Ariz. 96 - State v. Garnica

State v. Garnica’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
November 2011
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Thomas · State v. King · Griego v. People · City of Phoenix v. Yates · Bogdanov v. People

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

  1. “We were wrong when we said ... that liability for ... criminal homicide under a complicity theory always requires proof that the defendant intended to cause ... the death, even though the underlying crime requires proof of only a lesser culpable mental state[.]”); Weidler v. State, 624 So.2d 1090, 1091-92 (Ala.Crim.App.1993) (disapproving a broad reading of a previous decision which would inappropriately render complicity inconsistent with recklessness). . See Riley, 60 P.3d at 211 (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “If causing a particular result is an element of an offense, a person who acts with the kind of culpability with respect to the result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense is guilty of that offense if: 1. The person solicits or commands another person to engage in the conduct causing such result; or 2. The person aids, counsels, agrees to aid or attempts to aid another person in planning or engaging in the conduct causing such result.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Whereas A.R.S. § 13-301 requires an explicit intent to promote or facilitate the commission of an offense, subsection (B) creates liability whenever the defendant acts with any one of the four mental states that apply to the prohibited result, e.g., recklessly inciting another to damage property. Subsections (A)(2) and (3) and (B)(1) and (2) determine liability by coupling one defendant’s mental state with another defendant’s resulting conduct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.