State v. Straing’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

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

1. “[F]or a person to be guilty of a crime, it is not necessary that he do all the acts necessary to constitute the crime. If two or more persons act together with the common purpose to rob another, regardless of whether that purpose is to rob with or without a firearm, but robbery does involve — does involve at a minimum . . . the taking of property from another by violence or putting a person in fear with or without a firearm and ... if they act together with a common purpose to commit a robbery, two or more persons act with that common purpose and these two or more persons are actually present at the time the robbery is committed, then each of them is held responsible for the acts of the others done in the commission of the robbery.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 N.C. App. 276 - State v. Thompson · 123 N.C. App. 276 - State v. Weaver

2. “Now, members of the jury, I charge that for you to find either defendant on trial here guilty of robbery with a firearm, the State must prove seven things beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the particular defendant, either acting by himself or with others, took property from the person of another or from the other’s presence. Second, that the defendant himself or acting together with other persons carried away the property. Fourth, that the defendant knew that the defendant and those, if any, with whom he was acting in concert were not entitled to take the property. Fifth, that the defendant or someone with whom he was acting in concert intended to deprive the victim of the property’s use permanently. Sixth, the State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant or someone acting in concert with him had the firearm in his possession at the time the property was obtained or that it . . . reasonably appeared to the victim that a firearm was being used in which case you can infer that the instrument was what the defendant or one acting in concert with a defendant represented the instrument to be. And seventh . . . the State must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, either by himself or acting together with other persons, obtained the property by endangering or threatening the life of Clifford Hobson with the firearm.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 149 N.C. App. 276 - State v. Thompson

3. “Under this doctrine [acting in concert], where a single crime is involved, one may be found guilty of committing the crime if he is at the scene with another with whom he shares a common plan to commit the crime, although the other person does all the acts necessary to effect commission of the crime. . . . [WJhere multiple crimes are involved, when two or more persons act together in pursuit of a common plan, all are guilty only of those crimes included within the common plan committed by any one of the perpetrators. . . . [0]ne may not be criminally responsible under the theory of acting in concert for a crime like premeditated and deliberated murder, which requires a specific intent, unless he is shown to have the requisite specific intent. The specific intent may be proved by evidence tending to show that the specific intent crime was a part of the common plan.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 126 N.C. App. 581 - State v. Woods