Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"[t]he words `aid and abet' encompass all assistance by acts, words of encouragement, or support, or presence, actual or constructive, to render assistance should it become necessary. Wright [v. State , 494 So.2d 936 (Ala.Crim.App. 1986)]; Sanders v. State , 423 So.2d 348 (Ala.Crim.App. 1982). Actual participation in the crime need not be proved by positive testimony to convict someone of aiding and abetting. `The jury is to determine whether the appellant's participation exists and the extent of it from the conduct of the parties and all the testimony presented.' Walls v. State , 378 So.2d 1186 , 1191 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979), cert. denied, Ex parte Walls , 378 So.2d 1193 (Ala. 1980). Such facts as the defendant's presence in connection with his companionship, and his conduct at, before, and after the commission of the act, are potent circumstances from which participation may be inferred. Sanders v. State , supra; Smith v. State , 57 Ala.App. 151 , *Page 580 326 So.2d 680 (1975), cert. denied, 295 Ala. 419 , 326 So.2d 686 (1976)."”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte WDJ · Brown v. State

2. “" 'To be so "outrageous" as to effect a denial of due process, government enforcement techniques must be "fundamentally unfair" or "shocking to the universal sense of conscience," United States v. Russell , 411 U.S. 423 , 432 [ 93 S.Ct. 1637 , 1643 , 36 L.Ed.2d 366 ] . . . (1973); United States v. Mulherin , 710 F.2d 731 (11th Cir. 1983).' United States v. Andrews , 765 F.2d 1491 , at 1498 n. 4 (11th Cir. 1985). In Andrews , an undercover agent illegally transferred food-stamps through several dealings, which he recorded. The court held that '[t]he circumstances of this case surely fail to meet this stringent standard [of "outrageous" governmental conduct.]' Ibid. at 1498 n. 4. Governmental conduct wherein the informants 'may have suggested the scheme and aided in arranging in the air transportation' was found not to constitute misconduct. United States v. Gray , 626 F.2d 494 , 498 (5th Cir. 1980)."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. State · 615 So. 2d 114 - Long v. State

3. “`Such defense is not available, however, where the officer or other person acted in good faith for the purpose of discovering or detecting a crime and merely furnished the opportunity for the commission thereof by the one who had the criminal intent.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Patterson v. State · Harris v. State