People v. Clapp’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 15 Cal. 3d 953 - People v. Tewksbury (1976), 6 Cal. 4th 140 - People v. Garceau (1993)
99 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 People v. Coffey · People v. Davis · State v. Tennyson · People v. Burness · Dunn v. . the 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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . An accomplice is hereby defined as one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged against the defendant on trial in the cause in which the testimony of the accomplice is given.” (Italics added.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Harper · People v. Buffum“A different problem [from that presented by section 1111 of the Penal Code], however, is presented by section 1108 of the Penal Code, which ... provides that upon 'a trial for procuring or attempting to procure an abortion, or aiding or assisting therein,' the testimony of the woman upon whom the offense was committed must be corroborated. While it is true that this section does not specifically refer to a conspiracy to procure an abortion, the language is very broad and, in our opinion, should be construed to embrace the crime charged in the present indictment. It is apparent that the purpose of the Legislature was to provide a safeguard against the danger that the testimony of the woman who submitted to and willingly participated in the abortion may be colored in expectation of immunity or may be otherwise untrustworthy. This purpose is just as applicable where the defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit an abortion as it is where he is charged with committing or attempting to commit an abortion, and it would be incongruous to interpret section 1108 as intended to deny the safeguard in one situation but grant it in the other. Moreover, such an interpretation would make it possible for the prosecution to circumvent the purpose of the section in many cases by the simple expedient of charging the defendant with conspiracy rather than with the substantive offense itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Buffum“If a statutory provision so defines a crime that the participation of two or more persons is necessary for its commission, but prescribes punishment for the acts of certain participants only, and another statutory provision prescribes punishment for the acts of participants not subject to the first provision, it is clear that the latter are criminally liable only under the specific provision relating to their participation in the criminal transaction. The specific provision making the acts of participation in the transaction a separate offense supersedes the general provision in section 31 of the Penal Code that such acts subject the participant in the crime of the accused to prosecution for its commission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Thompson
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.