213 N.C. App. 392 - State v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Non-unique property may be identified by reference to characteristics other than its appearance: the assemblage or combination of items recovered, the quantity of items recovered, and the stamps and marks on items recovered.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 242 N.C. App. 384 - State v. Davis · 241 N.C. App. 176 - State v. Reison

2. “-was stolen. Defendant specifically contends that the first prong of the recent possession test was not met because the recovered tool was not unique and because Mr. Pulliam never identified the Craftsman saw as being one of the stolen items. We are not persuaded by defendant's argument. The State's evidence can reasonably be viewed as showing that the Craftsman saw was stolen property, and therefore the trial court did not err by instructing the jury on the doctrine of recent possession. The first prong of the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 N.C. App. 176 - State v. Reison

3. “(1) the property described in the indictment was stolen; (2) the stolen goods were found in defendant's custody and subject to his control and disposition to the exclusion of others; and (3) the possession was recently after the larceny, mere possession of stolen property being insufficient to raise a presumption of guilt.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 241 N.C. App. 176 - State v. Reison