214 N.C. App. 294 - State v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In support of this assertion, the State points to two portions of [the victim’s] testimony in which she describes Defendant forcing her to sit on his lap in a nearby chair. The State argues this constitutes sufficient evidence of removal, and therefore Defendant’s argument is factually deficient. We find the State’s argument unpersuasive. It is unclear how Defendant “forced” [the victim] to accompany him to the chair. And even assuming there is sufficient evidence of actual or constructive force, we conclude the asportation in this case was insufficient to constitute removal. We acknowledge that there is no particular requirement that a defendant move a victim a certain distance in order to support a charge of kidnapping under a theory of removal, and our Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that removal must be “substantial.” See State v. Fulcher, 294 N.C. 503, 522-23 , 243 S.E.2d 338, 351 (1978) (“[I]t was clearly the intent of the Legislature to make resort to a tape measure . . . unnecessary in determining whether the crime of kidnapping has been committed.”). Therefore, the State is correct in citing State v. Owen, 24 N.C. App. 598 , 211 S.E.2d 830 (1975), for the proposition that moving a victim a short distance could constitute kidnapping in a proper case. This, however, is not such a case. We do not discount the notion that evidence of removal could be present in a case where a victim was moved a distance equivalent to the space between where [the victim”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 222 N.C. App. 160 - State v. Boyd

2. “As a question of law, this Court reviews the sufficiency of jury instructions de novo .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Boyd