State v. Morston’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
November 2016
most recently cited
7 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Ahearn · State v. Jones · North Carolina National Bank v. Burnette · State v. Pope · State v. Melton
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.
“[a] trial court's resentencing of a defendant to the same sentence as a prior sentencing court is not ipso facto evidence of any failure to exercise independent decision-making or conduct a de novo review.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the case sub judice , the trial court's statement that it was trying to be consistent with Judge Sitton, while not intimating that the previous findings were the law of the case, indicates to us that its decision was not independent. We agree with defendant that it appears that the resentencing court based its decision in part upon the trial court's perception of the evidence and judgment at the prior sentencing hearing. In having made the aforementioned statement, the trial court created an ambiguity as to its reasoning for imposing the sentence that it did.... Thus, the apparent consideration of the trial court's judgment upon resentencing violated the defendant's right to a hearing de novo .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [T]he trial court made more than just the statement that it was correcting previous clerical errors, but in fact stated, "[h]aving heard testimony-new testimony today and also having received the transcript of the trial, based on all of that, I will render my judgments now, so, Mr. Morston, if you would stand up." Three of the six mitigating factors found by the trial court at the 2011 hearing were not found at the prior sentencing hearings. Moreover, defendant testified at the 2011 hearing after not testifying in either of the previous hearings. Clearly, the trial court considered new evidence and made new determinations regarding the mitigating factors in hearing defendant's testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.