State v. . Morris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Coming then to the record before us and interpreting it with reference to the indictment, the facts in evidence, and the charge of the court — a permissible method of interpretation — we think it is manifest that the verdict, 'guilty as charged,’ means ‘guilty of burglary in the first degree’ as charged in the bill of indictment. S. v. Whitley, 208 N.C. 661 , 182 S.E. 338 ; S. v. Bryant, 180 N.C. 690 , 104 S.E. 369 ; S. v. Wiggins, 171 N.C. 813 , 89 S.E. 58 ; S. v. Millican, 158 N.C. 617 , 74 S.E. 107 . So clearly is this so that no challenge has been made to the sufficiency of the verdict. The record as a whole reveals the clear intent of the jury. S. v. Kinsauls, 126 N.C. 1095 , 36 S.E. 31 . Indeed, the facts essential to the establishment of the capital offense are not in dispute. S. v. Foster, supra; S. v. Whit, supra. They appear in part from the defendant’s own evidence. “Under the principle stated, and owing to the clearness of the evidence and the very definite and precise instruction of the court as to the terms of the verdict, we find no difficulty in giving the instant verdict significance and upholding it as sufficiently determinative by reference to the indictment, the facts in evidence, and the charge of the court. S. v. Wiggins, sufra. “We deem it proper to say, however, that this method of interpreting a record is not a desirable one in a capital case where the pitfalls attendant upon such procedure are wholly disproportionate to the ease with which they may ”

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

2. ““As to the charge of burglary in the second degree, I charge you that if you find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden being on the State to so satisfy you that on the 17th day of November, 1970, that this defendant, Walter Lee Cox, did break and enter into the dwelling house here in Roxboro, owned and occupied by Sanders McWhorter, that at the time of the breaking and entering the building which is [sic] used as a dwelling house by Sanders McWhorter, that at the time of the breaking and entering no person was then physically inside of the dwelling house and that at the time of the breaking and entering it was the intent of the defendant to commit the felony of robbery therein, then upon your finding of these facts beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty, as charged, of burglary in the second degree.””

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

3. “(C. S., 4641), would be erroneous, though a verdict of burglary in the second degree, if returned by the jury, would be permitted to stand, such a verdict, under the circumstances, being regarded as favorable to the prisoner. S. v. Fleming, supra; S. v. Alston, supra . This may seem somewhat illogical, in view of C. S., 4640 and 4641, nevertheless it is firmly established by a number of decisions.'”

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