Scharver v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 15 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Alaska’s statutory law as well as our prior decisions in this area require rejection of appellant’s assertion of error. AS 12.15.010 [abrogates] ... [t]he distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degreeQ] and all persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether they directly commit the act constituting the crime or ... aid and abet in its commission, shall be prosecuted, tried, and punished as principals. Scharver’s counsel maintains that the abrogation of the distinction between accessories and principals ... applies only to punishment. We think this position is untenable[,] and we agree with the state’s contention that to “prosecute” one as a principal includes charging him as a principal.... [W]e have previously held that an accused who is indicted as a principal is subject to conviction upon evidence which shows that he only aided and abetted. [See ] Ransom v. State, 460 P.2d 170,172 (Alaska 1969) [.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Andrew v. State · Baker v. State

2. “Defense counsel maintained that, if ... Scharver was merely an accessory, [then] the prosecution’s failure to give notice as to the theory under which it intended to try Scharver was reversible error.”

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