Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 654 A2D 1195 - State v. Diaz

State v. Diaz’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2019

22 state decisions

110199520002010decided

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 Berkemer v. McCarty · Oregon v. Mathiason · Stansbury v. California · United States v. Johnson · Johnson v. United States

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. ““[t]he guilt of a defendant may be established without proof that the defendant personally did every act constituting the offense or offenses charged. The law provides that whoever aids or abets, or assists another to commit a crime is nonetheless criminally liable as a principal. The law holds that everyone who knowingly and willfully participates in the commission of a crime is responsible for that crime just as if he had committed the crime alone. * * * [Y]ou must find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a community of unlawful purpose at the time the criminal act was committed and that the defendant was a knowing, willing and active participant in that community in some way. In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant willfully associate himself in some way with the criminal venture and willfully participate in it as he would in something he himself wishes to bring about. Of course, you may not find a defendant guilty under the aiding and abetting theory unless you find beyond a reasonable doubt that every element of the offense which you are considering was committed by some person and that this defendant participated in its commission. Bear in mind that the law of aiding and abetting does not require that the defendant must foresee all of the consequences of the unlawful action in which he assists or participates, nor must every act of the defendant coincide with the action of the principal. A person who aids or abets is held”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““I look at whether or not Mr. Vieira’s freedom was curtailed. I don’t think that he was somehow in a position to claim, as a reasonable, innocent person might, that he was not free to leave. * * * He was given a ride to the station; he agreed to go. “I look at the next factor, whether there was any degree of force employed by the police. I find there was none. “I look at three, again, the belief of a reasonable, innocent person in identical circumstances, and I am fully satisfied that a reasonable innocent person in identical circumstances would not find themselves of a view that they had somehow been arrested under the circumstances presented in this case. “Fourthly, whether the person had the option of accompanying or not accompanying the police * * * the officers have no obligation to so admonish the subject.” (Paragraphing supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Every person who shall aid, assist, abet, [or] counsel * * * another to commit any crime or offense, shall be proceeded against as principal or as an accessory before the fact, according to the nature of the offense committed * * *.” Section 11-1-3.”
    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.