148 N.C. App. 310 - State v. Wilkerson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A]dmitting the bare fact of a defendant’s prior conviction, except in cases where our courts have recognized a categorical exception to the general rule (e.g. admitting prior sexual offenses in select sexual offense cases . . .), violates Rule 404(b) ... as well as Rule 403 . . . .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 166 N.C. App. 280 - State v. Blackwell · State v. Jacobs

2. “By permitting the State to introduce the bare fact of a defendant’s prior conviction, we permit the jury to surmise that the defendant, having once formed the necessary intent or developed the requisite mens rea, undoubtedly did so again; after all, another jury has already conclusively branded the defendant a criminal. Such leaps of logic, which inescapably treat the prior conviction as propensity evidence, are prohibited by Rule 404(b); the defendant is impeached without ever taking the stand, and is ineluctably labeled a criminal by the present jury. Thus, introducing the bare fact of a prior conviction under Rule 404(b) fails to satisfy the Rule 403 balancing test, as the only fair interpretation of the purpose behind the State’s introduction of such evidence is impermissible: that the evidence is being offered to show the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime charged.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 174 N.C. App. 402 - State v. Renfro · 188 N.C. App. 169 - State v. Maready

3. “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake, entrapment or accident.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 N.C. App. 280 - State v. Blackwell · 185 N.C. App. 18 - State v. Brockett