State v. Peck’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently December 2012 · most notably State v. Shank & Bradley (1975), State v. Zemina (1973)
4 federal appellate · 47 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 State v. McCreary · State v. Johnson · 177 Cal. App. 2d 201 - People v. Carlson · State v. Bates · State v. Nelson
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The contention the evidence is insufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the entry was with intent to commit larceny is not sustainable. The only evidence which would prove conclusively and beyond doubt the existence of an intent to commit larceny would be the statement or confession of the defendant himself. Admittedly there is nothing in the record to directly establish that the defendant intended to steal anything from the automobile or that the defendant knew that Fire Thunder intended to steal. But such intention or knowledge of such intention need not be directly or positively proved and it may be inferred from the circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Blakey“"A person aids and abets the commission of a crime if he knowingly and with criminal intent aids, promotes, encourages or instigates by act or advice, or by act and advice, the commission of such crime, and one who thus aids and abets the commission of a crime such as charged though not present and not directly committing the act constituting the offense is an accessory before the fact and chargeable as a principal. * * * * * * "The mere presence of a person at the commission of the crime does not make him guilty of the crime unless he participates in the crime or aids, abets, or assists another in the commission of the crime."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Runge“The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated. Any person connected with the commission of a felony, whether he directly commits the act constituting the offense or aids and abets in its commission, though not present, must be prosecuted, tried, and punished as a principal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Johnson
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.