Eckman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Pruitt v. State (2007), Cheddersingh v. State (2012)
52 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 Jackson v. Virginia · Wall v. State · Todd v. State · Davis v. State · Lobdell 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime.” OCGA § 16-2-20 (a). “A person is concerned in the commission of a crime only if [he]: ... (3) Intentionally aids or abets in the commission of the crime; or (4) Intentionally advises, encourages, hires, counsels, or procures another to commit the crime.” OCGA § 16-2-20 (b). Mere presence at the scene of a crime and mere approval of the criminal act are not sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was a party to the crime. [Cit.] Proof that the defendant shares a common criminal intent with the actual perpetrators is necessary ([cit.]), and may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the crime. [Cit.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. State“[m]ere presence at the scene . . . [is] not sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant was a party to the crime. [Cit.] Proof that the defendant shares a common criminal intent with the actual perpetrators is necessary [cit.], and may be inferred from the defendant’s conduct before, during, and after the crime [s]. [Cit.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pruitt v. State“Since there was evidence that appellant was present when the crimes were committed and the jury could infer from [his] conduct before and after the crimes that [he] shared the criminal intent of the actual perpetrator [ ], the evidence was sufficient to authorize [appellant’s] convictions as a party to those crimes. [Cits.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill 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.