254 N.J. Super. 541 - State v. Bridges’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “: Weeks holds that in order to convict a defendant as an accomplice to a crime, the jury must”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Bridges · 267 N.J. Super. 520 - State v. Bielkiewicz

2. “Ladies and gentlemen, if you find one defendant guilty of a purposeful or knowing murder and also find he did not act in the heat of passion resulting from a reasonable provocation, then you must determine whether the other defendant is or is not guilty of the same offense by reason of complicity or aiding and abetting. The law of complicity reads as follows: "A person is guilty as an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense he aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it." This provision means that not only is the person who actually commits the criminal act responsible for it but those who are accomplices are also responsible. The word aid as contained in the statute means to assist, support or supplement the efforts of another. If you find that the defendant willfully and knowingly aided another in the commission of the offense, you must consider him a principal. Aiding does not have to be proven by direct evidence of a formal plan to commit a crime which is verbally agreed to by all that are charged. The proof may be circumstantial. Participation and agreement can be established from conduct as well as spoken words. An accomplice has committed the same crime of purposeful or knowing murder only if the accomplice had the purpose to promote or facilitate the crime of purposeful or knowing murder as I have defined those terms for you. However”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 267 N.J. Super. 520 - State v. Bielkiewicz

3. “If both parties enter into the commission of a crime with the same intent and purpose each is guilty to the same degree; but each may participate in the criminal act with a different intent. Each defendant may thus be guilty of a higher or lower degree of crime than the other, the degree of guilt depending entirely upon his own actions, intent and state of mind. [State v. Fair, supra, 45 N.J. at 95 , 211 A.2d 359 .]”

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