State v. Jackmon’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2016
18 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 State v. Crisantos (Arriagas) · State v. Grunow · State v. Wilbely · State v. Scherzer · State v. Brown
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“That in this ease that the charge being considered was committed by Terrell Savage. That this defendant either committed the offense himself or solicited Terrell Savage to commit it and/or aid or agree or attempt to aid Terrell Savage in planning or committing it. Three, that the defendant had the purpose to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense charged. And, four, that the defendant possessed the criminal state of mind that is required to be proved against the person who actually committed the criminal act, or some lesser culpable state of mind that I will address later in my charge. Now, let me remind you that you should consider that accomplice status separately as to each charge. Remember that this defendant can be held to be an accomplice with equal responsibility only if you find as a fact that he possessed the criminal state of mind that was required to be proved against the person who actually committed the criminal act. In order to convict a defendant as an accomplice to the specific crime charged, you must find that the defendant had the purpose to participate in that particular crime. He must act with a purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the substantive crime with which he is charged. In sum, in order to find ... this defendant who you are considering guilty of committing the crime which you are considering on an accomplice theory, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: One, that the charge b”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Savage“not adequately explain to the jury how it might go about finding an accomplice guilty of a different offense or degree of offense than the principal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.