Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A person is responsible for the actions of another person when, either before or during the commission of a crime, he knowingly aids, induces, or causes the other person to commit a crime, even if the other person: 1. Has not been prosecuted for the of-fensel;] 2. Has not been convicted of the offense; or 3. - Has been acquitted of the offense. To aid is to knowingly support, help, or assist in the commission of a crime. In order to be held responsible for the actions of another, he need only have knowledge that he is helping in the commission of the charged crime. He does not have to personally participate in the crime nor does he have to be present when the crime is committed. Proof of the defendant's failure to oppose the commission of a crime, companionship with the person committing the offense, and conduct before and after the offense may be considered in determining whether aiding may be inferred. Mere presence at the seene of an alleged crime or failure to oppose the crime is not, in [and] of itself, aiding[,] inducing or causing the commission of a crime. Neither is negative acquiescence sufficient standing alone. There must be some conduct of an affirmative na-twre on the part of a defendant in order for that defendant to be criminally liable as an accessory. It must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant had knowledge of and participated in the commission of the crime.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Walker v. State · Williams v. State

2. “Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 313 , 105 S.Ct. 1965, 1970 , 85 L.Ed.2d 344 (1985) (quoting In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 372 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1077 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)). The Court has also held: A mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it must infer the presumed fact if the State proves certain predicate facts. A permissive inference suggests to the jury a possible conclusion to be drawn if the State proves predicate facts, but does not require the jury to draw that conclusion. Francis, 471 U.S. at 314 , 105 S.Ct. 1965 ; Geiger, 721 N.E.2d at 895.”

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

3. “'the potentially offending words must be considered in the context of the [instructions] as a whole. Other instructions might explain the particular infirm language to the extent that a reasonable juror could not have considered the [instruction] to have created an unconstitutional presumption.'”

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