Giniebra v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
August 2007
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · 519 So. 2d 622 - Staten v. State · 754 So. 2d 176 - McLean 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To convict as a principal, the State must show that Giniebra intended the crime to be committed and assisted the actual perpetrator in committing the crime. The record contains no evidence that Giniebra intended or participated in Wooding's murder. In the light most favorable to the State, the record shows, at most, that Giniebra was at [the same location as Wooding]. Mere presence at the scene or knowledge that an offense is being committed is insufficient to convict.”
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.