9 Md. App. 575 - Jeter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Stevenson v. State (1980), 19 Md. App. 640 - Mumford v. State (1974)
25 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 70 Cal. 2d 171 - People v. Durham · 5 Md. App. 450 - Williams v. State · People v. Kauffman · 30 Cal. App. 2d 185 - People v. King · Veney 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the facts here it is important to note that appellant knew that his codefendant had a gun before either party entered the building. While it is possible to imagine hypothetical crimes in which guns are used for purposes other than shooting, specifically shooting at people, it would be to fly in the face of reality to ignore that guns in a criminal situation are usually used to effect the crime desired or to prevent interference. Thus as the Court said in Romero v. State, 101 Neb. 650 , 164 N. W. 554 , 555: ‘In the instant case the [appellant] by his own testimony knew that his companion had a gun. He was bound to know that his companion might use it in resistance of an officer who might attempt to arrest him. The attempt to arrest is an interference with their plans. It is common experience that persons engaged in committing a felony may kill those who interfere. Such appears to be the general, though possibly not the universal, holding of the courts.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jeter alleges ... that Robinson, the actual killer according to this record, has been acquitted of murder, and claims he, Jeter, should also be acquitted. Although one cannot be convicted as an accessory after the fact until the principal has been convicted, the rule does not apply to a principal in the second degree, who is considered the same as a principal in the first degree for all practical purposes. Unfortunately, at times, an accused is improperly acquitted of a crime; sometimes due to the unavailability of important testimony or technical reasons which do not directly bear upon his actual guilt or innocence. This is no reason to acquit a second person who is also guilty of the crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The evidence that the companions of the appellant took guns with them tended to prove that they intended to kill if it became necessary in order to accomplish their design or to effect their escape.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.