631 So. 2d 427 - State v. Pierre’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
120 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably 828 So. 2d 622 - State v. Allen (2002), 823 So. 2d 877 - State v. Bridgewater (2002)
120 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 Jackson v. Virginia · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall · State v. Holmes · 392 So. 2d 651 - State v. Knowles · 563 So. 2d 847 - State v. Lubrano
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime, are principals.”
48 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Coleman · State v. Tate“preserves the role of the jury as the factfinder in the case but it does not allow jurors `to speculate if the evidence is such that reasonable jurors must have a reasonable doubt.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jurors had no direct or circumstantial evidence that the defendant counseled or procured the others to kill Alexander, or that he participated in the actual murder. Thomasie's testimony made clear that the defendant used the all-inclusive "they" even when referring in context to Courtney and Jones. Jurors knew from the extent of his self-contradiction and the testimony of David Antoine and Pierre Taylor that Jones lied in his trial testimony when he denied any involvement in the murder. Even if jurors disobeyed the court's cautionary instructions about the proper use of Jones's prior inconsistent statements, however, they could find no reliable answers in those statements about the degree of the defendant's involvement, if any. Jones testified at Hill's trial that the defendant opened the back door of his van when Hill and Courtney emerged from the abandoned house with the victim's body. In his statement of August 31, 1991, which broke the case, however, Jones indicated that Hill was the one who opened the rear door and that the defendant had remained in the front seat of the van, staring fixedly out of the windshield while the victim was then beaten to death on old Highway 1.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.