Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 299 N.C. 652 - State v. Williams

State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably State v. Rogers (1986), State v. Brown (1982)

62 state decisions

2401980199020002010decided

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 Ohio v. Gallagher · State v. Joyner · State v. Sanders · State v. Davis · State v. Watson

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

  1. “[i]t is not ... necessary for a defendant to do any particular act constituting at least part of a crime in order to be convicted of that crime under the concerted action principal so long as (1) he is present at the scene of the crime and (2) the evidence is sufficient to show he is acting together with another who does the acts necessary to constitute the crime pursuant to a common plan or purpose to commit the crime.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The only distinction in criminal culpability between one who actually commits the crime and one of the other guilty parties to the offense ... is the technical difference between being a principal in the first degree and being a principal in the second degree. A principal in the first degree is the person who actually perpetrates the deed and a principal in the second degree is one who is actually or constructively present when the crime is com mitted and aids and abets another in its commission. The law, however, recognizes no difference between a principal in the first degree and a principal in the second; both are equally guilty. . . . The distinction between aiding and abetting and acting in concert... is of little significance. Both are equally guilty, and are equally punishable.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A person is a party to an offense, however, if he either (1) actually commits the offense or (2) does some act which forms a part thereof or (3) if he assists in the actual commission of the offense or of any act which forms part thereof, or (4) directly or indirectly counsels or procures any person to commit the offense or to do any act forming a part thereof. (Numbered parentheses added.)”
    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.