36 Ohio App. 2d 1 - State v. Trocodaro’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 44 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““1. A person engaged in a common design with others to rob by force and-violence various individuals of their property is presumed to acquiesce in whatever may be reasonably necessary to accomplish the object of the enterprise; and if, under the circumstances, it might be reasonably expected that the victim’s life would be endangered by the manner and means of performing the criminal act conspired, each one engaged in the common design is bound by the consequences naturally or probably arising in its furtherance and, in case of death, would be guilty of homicide. - “2. If the conspired robbery, and the manner of its accomplishment, would be reasonably likely to produce death, each plotter is equally guilty with the principal killer, as an aider and abettor in the homicide, even though the aider and abettor was not aware of the particular weapon used to accomplish the killing. An intent to kill by the aider and abettor may be found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt under such circumstances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lockett

2. ““Where * * * [an] unlawful act was contemplated in the original conspiracy, although not identical with, or similar to the criminal act charged, if the conspired unlawful act and the manner of its performance would he reasonably likely to produce death, each conspirator is equally guilty with the principal offender, as an aider and abettor in the homicide, although such aider and abettor was neither present nor had knowledge of the physical killing or of the weapon used.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Lockett

3. “One may be found to be an aider and abettor in the commission of a crime even though he was not actually present at the time the crime was committed; such presence may take the form of constructive presence. Examples of such are drivers of vehicles used in perpetrating crimes[;] lookouts during the commission of crimes; and persons who set up schemes for obtaining entry by others into premises which are sites for criminal acts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Brown, Ca2006-10-120 (10-29-2007)