137 N.C. App. 766 - State v. Holbrook’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 state decisions

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he North Carolina Supreme Court has chosen to review such unpreserved issues for plain error when ... the issue involves either errors in the trial judge's instructions to the jury or rulings on the admissibility of evidence.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 253 N.C. App. 178 - State v. McNair · 195 N.C. App. 761 - State v. Vincent

2. “As we have noted, the essence of the plain error rule is that it be obvious and apparent that the error affected defendant’s substantial rights. If we were to adopt defendant’s proposition that the plain error rule may apply cumulatively to several unrelated portions of evidence where the trial judge was not asked to, and did not, make any affirmative ruling, we would be departing from the fundamental requirements of the plain error rule of obviousness and apparentness of error. Atrial judge would be required to review all evidence cumulatively for errors of admissibility even though defendant had made no objections to any evidence during trial. We agree with the State that under such a holding, a trial judge would be required to be omniscient. A defendant could fail to make any objection to the admission of evidence at trial, but could then require this Court to cumulatively review the évidence for possible errors amounting to plain error. Such rule would be in contradiction of our Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Appellate Procedure, and the plain error doctrine as defined by the North Carolina Supreme Court. See State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201 , 362 S.E.2d 244 [(1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036 , 99 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1988)]; State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655 , 300 S.E.2d 375 [(1983)]; State v. Cummings, 346 N.C. 291 , 488 S.E.2d 550 [(1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1092 , 139 L. Ed. 2d 873 (1998)]; State v. White, 331 N.C. 604 , 419 S.E.2d 557 [(1992)].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 N.C. App. 409 - State v. Morgan · 159 N.C. App. 546 - State v. Riley