People v. Laster’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Penal Code section 664, subdivision (a) brings within its scope `[e]very person who attempts to commit any crime. . . .' This phrase necessarily encompasses those who aid and abet an attempt; otherwise, an aider and abettor could not be punished for attempt at all. It then imposes three different measures of punishment on `the person guilty of that attempt,' depending on the nature of `the crime attempted': "1. If `the crime attempted' is willful, deliberate, premeditated murder, `the person guilty of that attempt' is subject to life imprisonment. "2. If `the crime attempted' is any other one in which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death, `the person guilty of the attempt' is subject to imprisonment for a term of five, seven, or nine years. "3. If `the offense so attempted' is any other one punishable by imprisonment, `the person guilty of that attempt' is subject to imprisonment for half the term applicable to the completed offense. "Again, these terms necessarily encompass an aider and abettor. Whenever an aider and abettor is convicted of attempt, there is `a crime attempted,' even though he or she did not personally attempt the crime. Moreover, under the derivative liability principles of Penal Code section 31, the aider and abettor is a `person guilty of that attempt' "Any other construction would be absurd; if the `willful, deliberate, and pre-meditated murder' clause could be construed as excluding aiders and abettors, the other clauses of Penal Code sec”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 Cal. App. 4th 706 - People v. Lee

2. “"Generally, if a statute is intended to impose a derivative liability on some person other than the actor, there must be some legislative direction that it is to be applied to persons who do not themselves commit the proscribed act. Such a direction is found in section 31 which fixes responsibility on an aider and abettor for a crime personally committed by a confederate. But the statute which defines aiders and abettors as principals in the commission of a criminal offense does not also purport to impose additional derivative punishment grounded on an accomplice's personal conduct, as those statutes which provide for such increased punishment `"do not define a crime or offense but relate to the penalty to be imposed under certain circumstances."' [Citations.] Hence the rules which make an accused derivatively liable for a crime which he does not personally commit, do not at the same time impose a derivatively increased punishment by reason of the manner in which a confederate commits the crime. [¶] . . . [¶] Our conclusion, of course, is also compelled by the established policy `to construe a penal statute as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstances of its application reasonably permit; . . . the defendant is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute.' [Citation.]" ( People v. Walker, supra, 18 Cal.3d at pp. 241-242, 133 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 555 P.2d 306 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 Cal. App. 4th 706 - People v. Lee

3. “Penal Code section 664, subdivision (a) brings within its scope `[e]very person who attempts to commit any crime. . . .' This phrase necessarily encompasses those who aid and abet an attempt; otherwise, an aider and abettor could not be punished for attempt at all. It then imposes three different measures of punishment on `the person guilty of that attempt,' depending on the nature of `the crime attempted':”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 85 Cal. App. 4th 706 - People v. Lee