State v. . Holland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Since the adoption of the statute permitting a defendant to testify in his own behalf it has been held that it is not improper, when the defendant has testified in his own behalf, for the presiding judge, in his charge, to instruct the jury that his testimony should be taken `with a grain of allowance'; *Page 164 S. v. Green , 187 N.C. 466 , 122 S.E. 178 ; S. v. Nat , 51 N.C. 114 ; that his testimony should be received with caution and scrutinized with care; S. v. Williams , 185 N.C. 643 , 116 S.E. 517 ; S. v. Barnhill , 186 N.C. 446 , 119 S.E. 894 ; S. v. Byers , 100 N.C. 512 , supra; S. v. Lance , 166 N.C. 411 , 81 S.E. 1092 ; `is regarded with suspicion'; S. v. Lee , 121 N.C. 544 ; S. v. Boon , 82 N.C. 638 ; S. v. Holloway , 117 N.C. 730 . When this is done the court should further instruct the jury, in substance, that after so weighing and considering the testimony of the defendant the jury should give his testimony such weight as it considers it is entitled to, and if the jury believes the witness it should give his testimony the same weight it would give the testimony of any other credible witness. S. v. Holloway, supra; S. v. Collins , 118 N.C. 1203 ; S. v. McDowell , 129 N.C. 523 ; S. v. Lee, supra; S. v. Barnhill, supra; S. v. Williams, supra; S. v. Green, supra.”

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

2. “. . . Such experiments and evidence as to the result thereof are relevant. [Citations omitted.] “Whether or not evidence of experiments is admissible is, under the circumstances of each case, a preliminary question for the determination of the court in the exercise of its discretion, which will not be interfered with by an appellate tribunal unless an abuse is made clearly to appear. ...” [Citations omitted.] If the evidence became irrelevant upon the latter showing through the defendant that the mill was not in operation on the date of the alleged homicide, defendant’s failure to move to strike was, in effect, a waiver of the exception.”

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

3. ““There is no hard and fast form of expression or consecrated formula required but the jury may be instructed that as to the defendant the jury should scrutinize his testimony in the light of his interest in the outcome of the prosecution but that if after such scrutiny the jury believes that the witness has told the truth, it should give his testimony the same weight it would give the testimony of any other credible witness. S. v. Green, supra.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 6 N.C. App. 611 - State v. Williams