State v. Labrum’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably CJC v. Corporation of Catholic Bishop (1999), State v. Jackson (1999)
38 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 United States v. Townsend · Berthold v. United States · West v. Thomson Newspapers · Syversen v. Summit Women's Center West, Inc. · State v. Kerekes
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“advise[d], instigate[d], encourage[d], or assist[ed] in perpetuation of the crime.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“). Labrum again appealed. ¶ 10 Before the court of appeals, Labrum argued that the sentencing court's findings were legally insufficient to fix accomplice liability. Labrum premised his argument on both the language of the statute and due process. The court of appeals reversed the enhancement on grounds that the findings were insufficient. It did not address the constitutional question; instead, it held: Under this statute, it is not enough that others were present when the crime was committed. Rather, the quality of their involvement must rise to the level of participation described in section 76-2-202,... Id. at 124 . The court of appeals then went on to say that all three actors " must possess a sufficiently culpable mental state, and the prosecution must prove the foregoing beyond a reasonable doubt. " Id. (emphasis added). Because the court of appeals appeared to rely on statutory interpretation to fix the burden of proof, it had no occasion to address Labrum's constitutional challenges. [5] ¶ 11 Today, Lopes presents to this court a challenge to the gang enhancement statute that is essentially identical to the one passed upon by the court of appeals in Labrum II. He contends that the State must prove all the elements of accomplice liability, including the mental state, beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with Lopes and conclude that the statutory "enhancement”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Every person, acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense who directly commits the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct which constitutes an offense shall be criminally liable as a party for such conduct.”
3 later decisions 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.