Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 248 Ind. 146 - Pace v. State

Pace v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
states following
December 1997
most recently cited

34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 1997 · most notably Wright v. State (1997), Edgecomb v. State (1996)

34 state decisions

1601967197019801990decided

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 Sage v. State · Peats v. State · Mobley v. State · Cotton v. State · Mattingly 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The main question presented in the facts at bar is what evidence beyond the mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime is sufficient to sustain a connection as an accessory before the fact ? This court has previously stated that negative acquiescence is not enough to constitute a person guilty of aiding and abetting the commission of a crime. Mattingly v. State (1952), 230 Ind. 431 , 104 N.E.2d 721 . Consequently, this court has always looked for affirmative conduct either in the form of acts or words from which reasonable inferences of a common design or purpose to effect the commission of a crime might be drawn. See Sage v. State (1890), 127 Ind. 15, 30 , 26 N.E. 667 ; Peats v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 560, 574 , 12 N.E.2d 270 . However, it has been further stated by this court in Mobley v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 335, 343 , 85 N.E.2d 489 , [492] : * * in the absence of anything in his conduct showing a design to encourage, incite, aid, abet or assist in the crime, the trier of the facts may consider failure of such person to oppose the commission of the crime in connection with other circumstances and conclude therefrom that he assented to the commission of the crime, lent his countenance and approval thereto, and thereby aided and abetted it * * *’ [Mobley v. State dealt with a mother’s aiding and abetting the physical abuse of her child by acquiescing in the stepfather’s sadistic beatings of the infant.] “It should be noted that the court in Mobley, supra, in statin”
    6 later decisions 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.