Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 202 N.C. App. 490 - State v. Davis

202 N.C. App. 490 - State v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Crawford v. Washington · Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts · Anderson v. Assimos · State v. Locklear · Saft America, Inc. v. Plainview Batteries, Inc.

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

  1. “[B]ecause [the] [D]efendant did not 'specifically and distinctly' allege plain error as required by [our appellate rules], [the] [D]efendant is not entitled to plain error review of this issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “As Defendant failed to object at trial to any of the aforementioned testimony, Defendant failed to preserve for appeal the argument that the evidence was erroneously admitted. See N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(1) ("In order to preserve a question for appellate review, a party must have presented to the trial court a timely ... objection ... stating the specific grounds for the ruling the party desired the court to make...."). "Moreover, because [D]efendant did not 'specifically and distinctly' allege plain error as required by North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c)(4), [D]efendant is not entitled to plain error review of this issue." State v. Dennison , 359 N.C. 312 , 312-13, 608 S.E.2d 756 , 757 (2005) (citing N.C. R. App. P. 10(c)(4) ). Furthermore, "[a] constitutional issue not raised at trial will generally not be considered for the first time on appeal." Anderson v. Assimos , 356 N.C. 415 , 416, 572 S.E.2d 101 , 102 (2002). While this Court may pass upon constitutional questions not properly raised at the trial level in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction "[t]o prevent manifest injustice[,]" N.C. R. App. P. 2, because there was copious unchallenged evidence before the jury that the substance at issue was cocaine, including ... unchallenged testimony, we decline to invoke Rule 2 in this case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “sufficient to show that the substance at issue was cocaine.”
    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.