146 N.C. App. 325 - State v. Williamson’s Empirical Analysis
2001
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Stager · City of Boerne v. Flores · State v. Bagley · State v. Boyd · State v. Cotton
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.
“Members of the jury, with regard to the evidence about to be offered by the State through this witness, I say to you, and I'm referring to evidence of conduct between this witness and the defendant prior to April 7, 2010, I say to you in that regard, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of the defendant in order to show that the defendant acted in conformity therewith. Such evidence may be admissible and considered by you for other purposes, such as proof of motive, intent, preparation, and/or plan in connection with the crime or crimes charged in this case. You may consider such evidence for such limited purposes for which it is received. With that the objection is overruled.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]his Court has long held that corroborative means to strengthen; to add weight or credibility to a thing by additional and confirming facts or evidence. It is not necessary that evidence prove the precise facts brought out in a witness's testimony before that evidence may be deemed corroborative of such testimony and properly admissible. The law does not require that Detective Grant's testimony about [the witness'] statements be in the exact words used by [the witness]. His testimony need only have tended to strengthen and confirm her testimony[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We conclude the gap in time is not too remote to warrant admission of the evidence under Rule 404(b), given our Supreme Court's liberal treatment of admitting prior evidence of similar sexual offenses, and its express holding [in State v. Frazier, 344 N.C. 611, 615-16 , 476 S.E.2d 297, 300 (1996),] that a ten-year gap between incidents is not sufficiently remote in time to preclude admission under 404(b).”
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.