141 N.C. App. 698 - State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) law enforcement officers or their agents engaged in acts of persuasion, trickery or fraud to induce the defendant to commit a crime, and (2) the criminal design originated in the minds of those officials, rather than with the defendant. The defense is not available to a defendant who was predisposed to commit the crime charged absent the inducement of law enforcement officials.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Foster · 161 N.C. App. 144 - State v. Reynolds

2. “Neither the informant nor O’Neil provided gifts or made promises before asking to purchase cocaine from defendant. Also, although defendant testified that he had been reluctant to sell cocaine to the informant and O’Neil, his own testimony showed defendant required little urging before acquiescing to their requests. “That [the undercover officer] gave defendant the money and asked him to obtain the cocaine is not evidence of inducement, just an opportunity to commit the offense.” State v. Martin, 77 N.C. App. 61, 67 , 334 S.E.2d 459, 463 (1985), cert. denied, 317 N.C. 711 , 347 S.E.2d 47 (1986). As we held in Martin , selling drugs as a favor and taking no profit from the transaction does not entitle a defendant to an instruction on entrapment. See also State v. Booker, 33 N.C. App. 223 , 234 S.E.2d 417 (1977). Defendant failed to introduce sufficient evidence of persuasion by either the informant or O’Neil to suggest that the criminal design originated with the law enforcement agents and not with defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 236 N.C. App. 648 - State v. Ott

3. “The fact that the defendant or his counsel and the prosecutor engaged in plea discussions or made a plea arrangement may not be received in evidence against or in favor of the defendant in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceedings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Kingsberry