101 N.C. App. 245 - State v. Autry’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 155 N.C. App. 307 - State v. Diaz (2002), 104 N.C. App. 591 - State v. Crawford (1991)
42 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. Harvey · State v. Cox · State v. Diaz · Finch v. City of Durham · 81 N.C. App. 91 - State v. James
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In ruling upon a motion to dismiss, the trial court must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the [S]tate, giving the [Sjtate the benefit of all reasonable inferences which may be drawn from the evidence.” A motion to dismiss is properly denied where the State presents substantial evidence of each element of the crime charged and that defendant is the perpetrator of the offense. “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” “Circumstantial evidence may withstand a motion to dismiss and support a conviction even when the evidence does not rule out every hypothesis of innocence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`When the State has established . . . that a defendant was present while a trafficking offense occurred and that he acted in concert with others to commit the offense pursuant to a common plan or purpose, it is not necessary to invoke the doctrine of constructive possession.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[i]f the defendant's possession over the premises is nonexclusive, constructive possession may not be inferred without other incriminating circumstances.”
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.