Probst v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 district · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably State v. Brown (1994), Commonwealth v. Berry (1995)
1 district · 62 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 Chapman v. State of California · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Scharffe v. Perkins · City of Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc. · Los Angeles Unified School District v. Los Angeles NAACP
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]his Court does not hold that a specific unanimity instruction is required in every case where a defendant may be convicted as a principal or as an accomplice. In fact, this Court recognizes that even when principal and accomplice liability theories are advanced, a general unanimity instruction is usually sufficient in the absence of a defense request for a specific instruction or in the absence of unusual circumstances creating a potential for confusion, e.g., alternative inei-dents which subject the defendant to criminal liability. 9”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hoskins v. Pierce · Pope v. State“the error complained of must be so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of the trial process. Dutton v. State, Del. Supr. 452 A.2d 127, 146 (1982). Furthermore, the doctrine of plain error is limited to material defects which are apparent on the face of the record; which are basic, serious and fundamental in their character, and which clearly deprive an accused of a substantial right, or which clearly show manifest injustice. Bromwell v. State, Del.Supr., 427 A.2d 884 , 893 n. 12 (1981).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In a criminal charge involving one incident and two people, the jury is regarded as being unanimous if, without specifically identifying who was the principal and who was the accomplice, they all agree that one of the two actors performed all of the elements of the offense charged as a principal and that both actors knowingly participated in the alleged criminal act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown · Stevenson v. State
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.