163 N.C. App. 727 - State v. Couser’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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the central issue to be decided by the jury was the credibility of the victim.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 172 N.C. App. 42 - State v. Delsanto · State v. Streater

2. ““It is error for the trial court to submit as an alternative verdict a lesser included offense which is not actually supported by any evidence in the case.” State v. Ray, 299 N.C. 151, 163 , 261 S.E.2d 789, 797 (1980). “Instructions on the lesser included offenses of first degree rape are warranted only when there is some doubt or conflict concerning the crucial element of penetration.” State v. Wright, 304 N.C. 349, 353 , 283 S.E.2d 502, 505 (1981). In this case, although the majority of the victim’s testimony was that defendant did in fact penetrate her vagina, there is other evidence in the case that puts the fact of penetration in doubt or conflicts with the victim’s testimony. The victim testified in one instance that she was not sure the defendant penetrated her vagina and in reporting the rape to others stated defendant had attempted to rape her. The medical evidence consisted of testimony that the only abnormalities observed were the abrasions to the introitus, located at the opening of the vagina, which were not specific to, nor diagnostic of, sexual abuse. Further, defendant presented evidence that the rape suspect kit revealed that none of defendant’s hairs were found on the victim, none of the victim’s hairs were found on him, and further no semen was found inside the victim or on her clothes. This is all evidence supporting an attempted rape conviction and the trial court did not err in submitting this charge to the jury and therefore, defendant is not entitled t”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 224 N.C. App. 102 - State v. Boyett · 199 N.C. App. 115 - State v. Giddens

3. “[a]lthough the Supreme Court did not reveal what evidence it relied upon, the prior Court of Appeals opinion in that case noted in addition to testimony of the victim and other corroborating evidence[,] there were two permissible expert opinions that the victim exhibited characteristics consistent with sexual abuse. State v. Stancil, 146 N.C.App. 234, 240 , 552 S.E.2d 212, 215-16 (2001), per curiam modified and aff'd, 355 N.C. 266 , 559 S.E.2d 788 . Further, there was evidence that the defendant had performed oral sex upon the victim and thus it was unlikely any physical evidence would have been left and that the rape suspect kit returned inconclusive. Id. Moreover, the victim in that case continued to show symptoms of having been sexually abused five days after the incident and showed intense and immediate emotional trauma after the incident. Id.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 172 N.C. App. 42 - State v. Delsanto · 199 N.C. App. 115 - State v. Giddens