151 N.C. App. 107 - State v. Siriguanico’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[wjhere such materials are found on the premises under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury on a charge of unlawful possession. It is not necessary to show that an accused has exclusive control of the premises where [drug] paraphernalia are found, but where possession ... is nonexclusive, constructive possession . . . may not be inferred without other incriminating circumstances.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 N.C. App. 801 - State v. Baublitz, Jr. · 155 N.C. App. 89 - State v. Wilson

2. “Whether the evidence presented is substantial is a question of law for the court.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 N.C. App. 762 - State v. Steele · 202 N.C. App. 771 - State v. Dukes

3. “When ruling on a defendant’s motion to dismiss a criminal action, “ ‘the trial court is to determine whether there is substantial evidence (a) of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and (b) of defendant’s being the perpetrator of the offense. If so, the motion to dismiss is properly denied.’ ” State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 65-66 , 296 S.E.2d 649, 651-52 (1982) (citation omitted). Whether the evidence presented is substantial is a question of law for the court, (citation omitted). Substantial evidence is “ ‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” State v. Smith, 300 N.C. 71, 78-79 , 265 S.E.2d 164, 169 (1980). “ ‘If the evidence is sufficient only to raise a suspicion or conjecture as to either the commission of the offense or the identity of the defendant as the perpetrator of it, the motion to dismiss should be allowed.’ ” Earnhardt, 307 N.C. at 66 , 296 S.E.2d at 652 (citation omitted).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 154 N.C. App. 607 - State v. Lowe