131 N.C. App. 285 - State v. Wagoner’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 2018
12 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 Idaho v. Wright · Young v. Harper · United States v. Ursery · Gaydos v. National Union Fire Insurance · State v. Wilson
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The State gave the defense sufficient notice of intent of its use of these statements; (2) These statements were not specifically covered by any of the other exceptions to the hearsay rule under Rules 803 and 804; (3) These statements were trustworthy; (4) The proffered statements were offered as evidence of a material fact; (5) The statements were more probative on the point for which they were offered than any other evidence which the proponent could accrue through reasonable efforts; (6) The general purpose of these rules and the best interest of justice would be served by the admission of these statements into evidence.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The Confrontation Clauses in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 23 of the North Carolina Constitution prohibit the State from introducing hearsay evidence in a criminal trial unless the State: (1) demonstrates the necessity for using such testimony, and (2) establishes the inherent trustworthiness of the original declaration.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) assurances of the declarant’s personal knowledge of the underlying events, (2) the declarant’s motivation to speak the truth or otherwise, (3) whether the declarant has ever recanted the statement, and (4) the practical availability of the declarant at trial for meaningful cross-examination.”
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.