161 N.C. App. 68 - State v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness' degree of attention, the accuracy of the witness' prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty shown by the witness, and the time between the offense and the identification.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 263 N.C. App. 341 - State v. Pless · 165 N.C. App. 547 - State v. Whitfield

2. “identification procedure would have resulted in an irreparable misidentification by Bozarth, because Bozarth did not identify defendant. Nevertheless, even if Bozarth's identification of defendant's coat could some how be imputed to defendant, such that Bozarth's identification of the coat was, in effect, an identification of defendant as the robber, we conclude there was no error in the use of the pretrial identification procedure. In analyzing whether identification procedures are impermissibly suggestive, North Carolina courts look to various factors including:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 165 N.C. App. 547 - State v. Whitfield

3. “Although the better practice would be for defense counsel to make a record of a defendant's consent to concessions or admissions of guilt prior to making those concessions, . . . we conclude that the trial court's inquiry was adequate to establish that defendant had previously consented to his counsel's concession[.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 N.C. App. 241 - State v. Culler