Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 N.C. App. 43 - State v. Willis

20 N.C. App. 43 - State v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
September 1974
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Williams · State v. Bass · State v. Gainey · State v. Crump · 17 N.C. App. 35 - State v. Lassiter

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

  1. ““The law regarding impeachment by reference to prior offenses was succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663 , 185 S.E. 2d 174 (1971). A witness — including a criminal defendant — may not for purposes of impeachment be cross-examined as to whether he has been accused — formally or informally — , arrested, indicted or whether he is under indictment for an offense other than the one for which he is on trial. The Supreme Court in the Williams decision overruled prior decisions on this point, but it specifically reaffirmed the rule that a witness — including a criminal defendant — is subject to cross-examination as to prior convictions. In State v. Gainey, 280 N.C. 366 , 185 S.E. 2d 874 (1972), the Supreme Court elaborated on the rules established by Williams, supra, by holding that while a witness may not, for purposes of impeachment, be asked whether he has been accused, arrested, or indicted for a specific offense, he may nevertheless be asked whether he has committed specific criminal acts or has been guilty of specific reprehensible conduct. Accord, State v. Lassiter, 17 N.C. App. 35 , 193 S.E. 2d 265 (1972).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.