181 N.C. App. 491 - State v. Leyva’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[defendant argues that the admission of Detective Whitzel’s testimony about the information given to Detective Almond by the confidential informant violated [the] defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights and constitutes plain error. . . . However, [the] defendant incorrectly categorizes the evidence as testimonial. Here, the evidence was introduced to explain the officers’ presence at Salsa’s Restaurant that night, not for the truth of the matter asserted. . . . A later witness, Detective Briggs, testified that he participated in the surveillance of defendant’s apartment at the request of Detective Almond, which request was founded on information provided by the confidential informant. When asked to explain why he was outside defendant’s home, Detective Briggs responded that, ‘On that day, I was given information by Detective Almond that this subject was going to deliver a half kilo to Detective Little and a confidential informant.’ Defendant did not object to this testimony during the trial, and so must prove the admission of Briggs’ testimony was plain error. However, analysis of the plain error argument is again unnecessary because, as with the previous statement, this testimony was introduced to explain Detective Briggs’ presence outside of defendant’s apartment rather than the truth of the matter asserted. [The] [defendant also asserts that these two statements violated Rule 802 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence because they are inadmissible hearsay. As previously articu”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 N.C. App. 593 - State v. Tate · State v. Talbert

2. “Plain error is error `so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 N.C. App. 374 - State v. Kidd · 202 N.C. App. 374 - State v. Hooker

3. “In criminal cases, a question which was not preserved by objection noted at trial . . . may be made the basis of an assignment of error where the judicial action questioned is specifically and distinctly contended to amount to plain error.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 N.C. App. 374 - State v. Kidd