290 So. 2d 603 - Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably 487 So. 2d 1304 - Gray v. State (1986), Franklin v. State (1996)
25 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 Corallo v. United States · United States v. Joseph A. Chase, United States of America v. Robert H. Parrish, United States of America v. Wyatt J. Roy, Jr. · Sears v. United States · United States v. Corallo · United States v. Wray
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`By its very nature, conspiracy is a joint or group offense requiring a concert of free will.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“DJ-3A As I have previously instructed you, the essential element of the offense of conspiracy to commit a crime is the express, or, implied agreement, voluntarily made, between two or more persons to commit that crime. One person acting alone without the actual agreement of another person, no matter how sincere he may be in his desire to commit a crime, cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to commit a crime. In line with this law, you are advised that: (1) if one person only feigns acquiesence in a proposal of another to commit a crime, there is no conspiracy between that person and the other since there is no union or concert of wills of two or more persons to commit a crime; or (2) if one of two persons who conspire to commit a crime is acting as an informer and entered into the conspiracy for the purpose of informing on the other, then in either event, the other person cannot be guilty of the crime of conspiracy. Applying these rules of law to this case, you are instructed that unless the State of Mississippi has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that William Griffin at the time he entered into the alleged conspiracy intended to commit the crime and was not simply feigning acquiesence in a proposal of Billy James, if any, to commit the crime and that at the time any agreement was entered into between Griffin and Billy James, Griffin, acting as an informer, entered into the conspiracy for the purpose of informing on Billy James, then you cannot find Billy James guilty of having ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. James v. State“Developments in the Law Criminal Conspiracy,”
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.