185 N.C. App. 376 - State v. Wiggins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 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 36 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”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 187 N.C. App. 593 - State v. Tate · 202 N.C. App. 733 - State v. Batchelor

2. “Just before defendant was pulled over, he had accelerated from 0 to 60 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour speed zone with a police officer directly behind him. The officer noticed the cocaine in plain view in the car door handle on the driver’s side of the vehicle, well within reach of defendant. While talking with the officer, defendant was “sweating profusely” and was nervous. In the officer’s opinion, defendant “was under the influence of something[,]” although the officer did not consider defendant to be so impaired that he could not drive. A subsequent search of the vehicle uncovered more cocaine located under the driver’s seat. This second baggie of cocaine was also well within defendant’s reach. Although Cosby [a carwash employee], [and] an admitted cocaine addict, testified he placed or dropped cocaine in the car while cleaning it, Leak testified he did not notice any cocaine in the vehicle following the cleaning. Taken in the light most favorable to the State, this evidence supports a reasonable inference that defendant was aware of the presence of cocaine in the vehicle and had the power and intent to control its disposition.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Velazquez-Perez · 217 N.C. App. 605 - State v. Johnson

3. “[e]vidence tending to establish a 'mutual, implied understanding will suffice to withstand a defendant's motion to dismiss.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 193 N.C. App. 521 - State v. Robledo · 203 N.C. App. 373 - State v. BELTRAN-PONCE