57 Ala. App. 151 - Smith v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently December 2007 · most notably 363 So. 2d 1020 - Thomas v. State (1978), Garner v. State (1978)
44 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 Young v. State · Stokley v. State · Skumro v. State · Williams v. State · Allen v. State
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . . Such facts as his presence in connection with his companionship, his conduct at, before, and after the commission of the act, are potent circumstances from which participancy may be inferred." Smith v. State , 57 Ala. App. 151 , 156-7 , 326 So.2d 680 , 685 , cert. denied, 295 Ala. 419 , 326 So.2d 686 (1976).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`. . . [T]he responsibility for incidental and often for accidental results broadens with the magnitude or heinousness attached to the unlawful act specifically agreed to be perpetrated. This is upon the principle that every one is presumed to intend, and therefore must be held responsible for, the natural and probable consequences of his own acts. It necessarily follows that, where one person combines with another to do an unlawful act, he impliedly consents to the use of such means by his confederate as may be necessary or usual in the successful *Page 874 accomplishment of such an act. The more flagrant and vicious the act agreed to be done, the wider is the latitude of the agency impliedly conferred to execute it.' "Participation and community of purpose may be shown by circumstantial evidence or inferred from the conduct of the participants. Appellant's complicity is a question for the jury. Skumro v. State , 234 Ala. 4 , 170 So. 776 ; Pearce v. State , 4 Ala. App. 32 , 58 So. 996 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.