9 Wash. App. 545 - State v. Taplin’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2012
8 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2
Relies on In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Griffin v. California · 78 Wash. 2d 121 - State v. Golladay · 27 Wash. 2d 336 - State v. Britton · 93 Cal. App. 2d 147 - People v. Geibel
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Taplin next assigns error to the instruction which was given on aiding and abetting, contending that there was no evidence to support it. It is true that, if there is no proof that anyone else committed the offense, the giving of an aiding and abetting instruction may be prejudicial error. State v. Nikolich, 137 Wash. 62 , 241 P. 664 (1925). However, there was sufficient evidence to warrant the giving of the instruction. Ms. Estill was in close proximity to the scene of the crime when it was committed, she was a passenger in the car in which the stolen property was probably transported, and she occupied the motel room in which the property was subsequently found. This establishes a prima facie case of burglary against her and justifies the giving of the instruction. State v. Frazier, 76 Wn.2d 373 , 456 P.2d 352 (1969); State v. Razey, 54 Wn.2d 422 , 341 P.2d 149 (1959). The defense seems to argue that there was no evidence implicating Ms. Estill in the commission of the crime because, with Taplin seen at the doorway, it is obvious that, as between the two, Taplin did it. The evidence as to the person or persons entering the apartment was entirely circumstantial. The jury could not know absolutely whether it was Taplin, Ms. Estill, or both, or someone else. It is enough under the statute, RCW 9.01-.030, that there be substantial evidence, which there was, that Taplin participated either as principal or accessory. State v. Nichols, 148 Wash. 412 , 269 P. 337 (1928).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“) if the elements of the crime are proven, and ;t is also proven that the defendant was”
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.