212 N.C. App. 661 - State v. Martinez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In State v. Giddens[, 199 N.C. App. 115 , 681 S.E.2d 504 (2009), aff’d per curiam, 363 N.C. 826 , 689 S.E.2d 858 (2010),] this Court concluded similar testimony to be an impermissible expression of opinion as to the credibility of the accuser. At issue in Giddens was the testimony by a DSS investigator that he “substantiated” the victim’s sexual abuse allegation after an investigation into the claim. Because the investigator’s testimony was based, in part, on the DSS investigation and not solely on the children’s accounts of what happened, the Court rejected the State’s argument that the testimony was a prior consistent statement and merely corroborated the victims’ testimony. Rather, the testimony amounted to an impermissible voucher of the victims’ credibility. The Giddens Court concluded the investigator’s testimony, that DSS “substantiated” the allegations of sexual abuse, essen tially told the jury that DSS determined the defendant was guilty of sexually abusing the victims and the trial court erred in admitting the testimony. The State argues the present case is distinguishable. In Giddens, the State’s witness testified to the thorough nature of the investigation that led DSS to conclude the victims’ allegation was substantiated. Here, Putney did not testify to the thoroughness of the DSS investigation, but merely stated that DSS “substantiated” the claim after conducting an investigation. On this basis, the State contends it would be disingenuous to equate the present ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 216 N.C. App. 404 - State v. Surratt