141 N.C. App. 378 - State v. Barnett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]hat the evidence could not be admitted pursuant to Rule 609(a) does not preclude its admission under [Rule 404(b)].”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 148 N.C. App. 310 - State v. Wilkerson · 186 N.C. App. 680 - State v. Ewell

2. “`general rule of inclusion of relevant evidence of other crimes,'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 143 N.C. App. 187 - State v. Berry · 148 N.C. App. 310 - State v. Wilkerson

3. “[T]his testimony [of the facts and circumstances underlying defendant's prior conviction] was relevant on the issue of defendant's motive.... On cross-examination, the State further questioned defendant about his drug habit, and about his means of financing that drug habit. The evidence that defendant previously committed forgery to finance his drug habit could properly be admitted, not to show defendant had a propensity to commit forgery or other crimes, but rather to show that his need to support his drug habit and his lack of finances were the motive for the robbery and murder of the victim. ... Here the evidence elicited on cross-examination about defendant's drug use and his prior conviction was admissible under Rule 404(b) because it permits the inference that defendant committed this robbery and murder to obtain money he needed to support his drug habit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 148 N.C. App. 310 - State v. Wilkerson