116 N.C. App. 534 - State v. Westall’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably State v. Williams (1995), 139 N.C. App. 132 - State v. Hutchinson (2000)
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 State v. Lawson · State v. Joyner · State v. Riddick · State v. Allen · Heishman v. California
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ I]n a case where the instrument used to commit a robbery is described as appearing to be a firearm or other dangerous weapon capable of threatening or endangering the life of the victim and there is no evidence to the contrary, it would be proper to instruct the jury to conclude that the instrument was what it appeared to be. The jury should not be so instructed if there is evidence that the instrument was not, in fact, such a weapon, but was a toy pistol or some other instrument incapable of threatening or endangering the victim’s life even if the victim thought otherwise.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In considering this assignment of error, we find instructive this Court’s decision in State v. Phifer, 290 N.C. 203 , 225 S.E.2d 786 (1976). There, the defendant objected to the trial judge’s decision to allow into evidence the testimony of two SBI agents. One agent gave his opinion as to whether the washing of one’s hands would destroy any possibility of a valid gun residue test, and a second agent explained the differences between a latent lift and a fingerprint. Neither of the agents had been formally qualified as experts. We held that because of the nature of their jobs and the experience which they had, they were better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on these matters. Id. at 213 , 225 S.E.2d at 793 . The Court further held that because the defendant never requested a finding by the trial court as to the witnesses’ qualifications as experts, such finding was deemed implicit in the ruling admitting the opinion testimony. Id. at 213-14 , 225 S.E.2d at 793 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he use of a dangerous weapon need not result in death, but the instrument itself must merely be capable of taking life in the manner that it was used. . . . [A]ny instrument capable of causing serious bodily injury could also cause death depending on its use. In our view, serious bodily injury is synonymous with endangering or threatening life.”
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.