State v. Arnold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 state decisions

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. “To be guilty of the crime charged, it is not necessary that the State prove that the defendant himself committed the unlawful act or acts in question. Whoever aids, abets, or procures another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender. If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the unlawful act or acts in question were committed by another person who was: 1. Engaged by the defendant to commit the unlawful act or acts; or 2. Engaged with the defendant in a common, concerted unlawful act or acts; or 3. Incited or encouraged by defendant to commit the unlawful act or acts, then defendant is as guilty as if he himself committed the unlawful act or acts, and it is your duty to find the defendant guilty. Aiding and abetting involves some participation in the criminal act and must be evidenced by some word, act, or deed. No particular acts are necessary; nor is it necessary that any physical part in the commission of the crime is taken or that there was an express agreement therefor. Mere encouragement or assistance is sufficient. On the other hand, evidence of mere presence, acquiescence, or silence is not enough to sustain the State’s burden of proving the defendant guilty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lotter

2. “when an allegation of jury misconduct is made and is supported by a showing which tends to prove that serious misconduct occurred, the trial court should conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the alleged misconduct actually occurred. If it occurred, the trial court must then determine whether it was prejudicial to the extent that the defendant was denied a fair trial. If the trial court determines that the misconduct did not occur or that it was not prejudicial, adequate findings are to be made so that the determination may be reviewed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nebraska Nutrients, Inc. v. Shepherd