JOHNSON v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 1991
18 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 Tait v. State · Warren v. State · Robertson v. State · Steffler v. State · Hedrick 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that a conviction of conspiracy can rest on circumstantial evidence. In Gaynor v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 470 , 217 N. E. 2d 156 this Court stated: ‘It has been held that a conspiracy does not need to rest solely on words giving rise to an express agreement, but may be inferred from acts and conduct of the persons accused done in pursuance of an apparent criminal or unlawful purpose in common between them.’ Citing Smith v. State (1960), 241 Ind. 311 , 170 N. E. 2d 794 ; Steffler v. State (1952), 230 Ind. 557 , 104 N. E. 2d 729 . In Robertson v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 368 , 108 N. E. 2d 711 the Court stated: ‘There must be an agreement and there must be evidence to prove the agreement directly, or such a state of facts that an agreement can be legally inferred.’ 231 Ind. 368, 370 . In Steffler v. State, supra, this Court quoted Brewster v. State (1917), 186 Ind. 369 , 115 N. E. 54 , wherein it was stated: ‘It is not necessary to prove that the defendants came together and actually agreed in terms to have the unlawful purpose and to pursue it by common means. If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part and another part of the same so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of that same object, the jury will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object,’ 230 Ind. 557, 564 .” 251 Ind. at 189, 190, 240 N. E. 2d at 74,75.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Frias v. State · Lane v. State“Any person or persons who shall untie or combine with any other person or persons for the purpose of committing a felony, within or without this state; or any person or persons who shall knowingly unite with any other person or persons, body, association or combination of persons, whose object is the commission of a felony or felonies, within or without this state, shall, on conviction, be fined not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000), and imprisoned in the state prison not less than two (2) years nor more than fourteen (14) years.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Flinn 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.