People v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 218 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 229 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Neal v. State of California (1960), Nelson v. O'NEIL (1971)
5 federal appellate · 218 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 Fiswick v. United States · 35 Cal. 2d 175 - People v. Knowles · People v. Codina · 13 Cal. 2d 37 - People v. Green · 26 Cal. App. 2d 725 - People v. Yant
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 229 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Roberts contends that count (1) of the information is insufficient because it does not specify which particular act (possessing, transporting, etc.) denounced by section 11500 was the object of the conspiracy. It is only required that the pleading be ‘in any words sufficient to give the accused notice of the offense of which he is accused. ’ (Pen. Code, § 952.) Notice of the particular circumstances of the offense is given not by detailed pleading but by the transcript of the evidence before the committing magistrate (or the grand jury); defendant is entitled to such transcript under section 870 (or section 925 of the Penal Code.) (People v. Pierce (1939), 14 Cal.2d 639, 645 [ 96 P.2d 784 ]; People v. Codina (1947), 30 Cal.2d 356, 358-359 [ 181 P.2d 881 ]; People v. Yant (1938), 26 Cal.App.2d 725, 730 [ 80 P.2d 506 ].)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is only required that the pleading be ‘in any words sufficient to give the accused notice of the offense of which he is accused. ’ (Pen. Code, § 952.) Notice of the particular circumstances of the offense is given not by detailed pleading but by the transcript of the evidence before the committing magistrate (or the grand jury); defendant is entitled to such transcript under section 870 (or section 925) of the Penal Code. [Citations.] . . . The information alleges a single conspiracy with the object of accomplishing one or more types of violation of section 11500, and there was evidence which tends to show that several objects of this single conspiracy were accomplished.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Bowman““Moreover, confession or admission by one co-conspirator after he has been apprehended is not in any sense a furtherance of the criminal enterprise. It is rather a frustration of it. . . . (The co-conspirator’s) admissions were therefore not admissible against his erstwhile fellow-conspirators.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. McKibben
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.