190 N.C. App. 552 - State v. Tollison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Ladies and gentlemen, in Case Number 05 CRS 54070, the defendant, Paul Tadeja, has been charged with statutory sexual offense against a child of the age of thirteen years. During this trial, the State has presented evidence which the State contends shows that during the summer of 2005, the defendant attempted to insert his penis into the vagina of . . . [Jane]. The defendant denies that this act occurred. What, if anything, the evidence shows is for you to say and determine, members of the jury. For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the State must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt. First, that the defendant engaged in a sexual act with . . . [Jane], A sexual act means any penetration, however slight, by an object into the genital opening of a person’s body. Second, that at the time of the act, . . . [Jane] was thirteen years old. Third, that at the time of the act, the defendant was at least six years older than . . . [Jane]. And fourth, that at the time of the act, the defendant was not lawfully married to . . . [Jane], If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the alleged date, the defendant engaged in a sexual act with ... [Jane], who was thirteen years old and that the defendant was at least six years older than . .. [Jane] and was not lawfully married to... [Jane], then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty as to this charge. On the other hand, if you do not so find or if you have any reasonable doubt”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 191 N.C. App. 439 - State v. Tadeja

2. “Because defendant failed to object t.o the jury instructions in this case, this assignment of error must be analyzed under the plain error standard of review. State v. Holden, 346 N.C. 404, 434-35 , 488 S.E.2d 514, 530-31 (1997). Plain error with respect to jury instructions requires the error be “so fundamental that (i) absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different verdict; or (ii) the error would constitute a miscarriage of justice if not corrected.” Id. at 435 , 488 S.E.2d at 531 . Further, “in deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” State v. Bell, 359 N.C. 1, 23 , 603 S.E.2d 93, 109 (2004) (citation and quotations omitted), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1052 , 125 S.Ct. 2299 , 161 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (2005).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 191 N.C. App. 439 - State v. Tadeja

3. ““In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make if the specific grounds were not apparent from the context.” N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(1). “This Court will not consider arguments based upon matters not presented to or adjudicated by the trial tribunal.” State v. Eason, 328 N.C. 409, 420 , 402 S.E.2d 809, 814 (1991). Thus, defendant has waived his right to appellate review])]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 191 N.C. App. 439 - State v. Tadeja