186 N.C. App. 364 - State v. Estes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he State presented a very weak case of constructive possession. There was no surveillance of this apartment, no eyewitnesses, and no confidential informants. Although there were two envelopes addressed to . . . [defendant] at that address and days later the police said he gave that address when he was arrested, there was nothing to tie him to drugs and guns and the occupancy of Ms. Bennett’s apartment the day of the raid. None of . . . [defendant’s] clothes were in that apartment but there was testimony that the clothing of other men were [sic] in that closet. There was no evidence that . . . [defendant] had been in that apartment around the time of the raid but there was testimony that at least four other people were in that apartment around this time and had access to that closet. No toiletries belonging to . . . [defendant] were found in that apartment. . . . [Defendant] had no key. The lease was not in his name as were none of the utilities. Even in the light most favorable to the State, the State failed to prove the element of possession for these offenses.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 202 N.C. App. 585 - State v. DEBERRY · 194 N.C. App. 330 - State v. Cowan

2. “The only distinction in criminal culpability between one who actually commits the crime and one of the other guilty parties to the offense ... is the technical difference between being a principal in the first degree and being a principal in the second degree. A principal in the first degree is the person who actually perpetrates the deed and a principal in the second degree is one who is actually or constructively present when the crime is com mitted and aids and abets another in its commission. The law, however, recognizes no difference between a principal in the first degree and a principal in the second; both are equally guilty. . . . The distinction between aiding and abetting and acting in concert... is of little significance. Both are equally guilty, and are equally punishable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 194 N.C. App. 120 - State v. Smith

3. “(1) that the representation was made as alleged; (2) that property or something of value was obtained by reason of the representation; (3) that the representation was false; (4) that it was made with intent to defraud; [and] (5) that it actually did deceive and defraud the person to whom it was made.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 242 N.C. App. 252 - State v. Davis