State v. So’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2012
16 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 Spies v. People · Branch v. Faust · Card v. State · State v. Ayres · State v. Winner
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Instruction No. 16. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime who either directly and actively commit the act constituting the offense or knowingly and with criminal intent aid and abet in its commission or, whether present or not, who advise and encourage its commission, are regarded by the law as principals in the crime thus committed and are equally guilty thereof. In this regard it is not necessary that the defendant himself have actually entered the premises burglarized to be guilty of first-degree burglary as a principal. All persons concerned in the com mission of such a crime of burglary, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense or aid and abet in its commission, or, if not present, have advised and encouraged in its commission, are principals in such crimes so committed and equally guilty thereof. Instruction No. 17 To “aid and abet” means to assist, facilitate, promote, encourage, counsel, solicit, or incite the commission of a crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Holder · State v. Adamcik“[w]here a conspiracy has been established to commit a crime, each declaration of any of the conspirators, during the pendency of the criminal enterprise, in pursuance of the original plan and with reference to the common object, is competent evidence against each of them.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Mata · State v. Brooks“The common law distinction between classes of parties to criminal offenses is abolished. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime are principals, and one who aids and abets another in the commission of a crime is a principal. No reference to accused as an accessory is necessary. Nor is it necessary that facts be set out showing whether the accused was an accessory or a principal. An accessory to a crime, or a participant therein may be charged as a principal, and the information need not allege facts different from those required to be alleged against the principal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Adamcik
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.