Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 27 CONNAPP 1 - State v. Gamble

State v. Gamble’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably State v. Cooper (1995), State v. Hooks (1993)

28 state decisions

220199220002010decided

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 North Carolina v. Alford · State v. Golding · State v. Evans · California Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Guerra · State v. Fleming

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

  1. “[a]lthough a defendant may plead guilty to a crime without distinguishing whether he was a principal or an accessory, once he has chosen to plead guilty as an accessory and the court has accepted that choice by accepting that plea, he can be found guilty of only that crime and is entitled to a judgment, sentence and mittimus that reflects that crime. His decision to plead as an accessory has to be influenced by his belief that he will be found guilty as an accessory. ... Due process requires that the defendant know the specific charge to which he is pleading. A jury may be polled as to the basis of its verdict to determine whether the defendant was convicted as a principal or an accessory. ... If this is so, a defendant must be able to plead as an accessory or a principal.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Sentences imposed in an illegal manner have been defined as being within the relevant statutory limits but . . . imposed in a way which violated defendant's right . . . to be addressed personally at sentencing and to speak in mitigation of punishment . . . or his right to be sentenced by a judge relying on accurate information or considerations solely in the record, or his right that the government keep its plea agreement promises . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A person, acting with the mental state required for commission of an offense, who solicits, requests, commands, importunes or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable for such conduct and may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender.”
    1 later decision 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.