Banks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Wright v. State (1997), Funk v. State (1981)
54 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 Wong Sun v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Hester v. State · Vacendak v. State · Coyote v. United States
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court instructs you that it is the law in Indiana that a person engaged in the commission of an unlawful act is legally responsible for all the consequences which may naturally or necessarily flow from it. If he combines and confederates with others to accomplish an illegal purpose, he is liable criminally for everything done by his confederates which flows incidentally from the execution of the common design as the natural and probable consequences of the common design. This rule of criminal responsibility for the acts of others is subject to the reasonable limitation that the particular act or acts of one member of a party, for which the other associates and confederates are to be held liable, must be shown to have been done for the furtherance or in prosecution of the common object and design for which the persons combined together.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wright v. State“"Burglary Degrees. (a) Whoever breaks and enters into any dwelling house or other place of human habitation with the intent to commit any felony therein, or to do any act of violence or injury to any human being, shall be guilty of burglary in the first degree, and on conviction thereof shall be imprisoned not less than ten [10] years nor more than twenty [20] years and be disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“was not necessary to convey to the jury the definition of burglary. As noted in Banks, the word is not even contained in the statutory definition of burglary. See Ind.Code § 35-43-2-1 (Burns 1983 Supp.). As such, the instructions sufficiently stated the elements required for the offense charged. Another reason also exists for finding no error. The defendant's allegation of error stems from the instructions given to the jury. Under Ind.R.Tr.P. 51(C),”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Blackmon 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.