State v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Franco (1976), State v. Crow (1972)
60 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 Wong Tai v. United States · State v. McGee · State v. Hubbard · State v. Brown · State v. Wilson
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““All persons are equally guilty who act together with a common intent in the commission of a crime, and a crime committed by two or more persons acting jointly is the act of all and of each ■one so acting. However, the mere presence of one at or near the scene of a crime does not render him liable as a participator therein. If one is only a spectator, innocent of any unlawful act or criminal intent, and does not aid, abet, assist, advise or encourage another or others in the commission of a crime, that person is not liable as a principal, or otherwise, and should be acquitted. If, however, a person be present, and by words or by actions aids, abets, assists, advises or encourages the crime, with the intent that the words or acts should encourage and abet the crime committed, then that person is equally guilty with the person who actually commits the physical deed. “In this regard you are instructed that to find the defendant guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree it is not necessary for the defendant actually to have broken into any part of the store and building as alleged in these instructions or actually to have entered the store and building alleged; but, if you so find and believe from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was then and there present, and did anything toward the completion of the common design to commit the burglary alleged, if you so find, by watching on the outside of the said store and building or otherzvise, then you ought to find”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Regazzi““ * * * Error cannot be predicated upon a failure to give an instruction on circumstantial evidence unless evidence of that character is solely relied upon for conviction. * * * ” (Emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Newhart
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.