State v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 191 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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . When the admissibility of a confession is challenged on the ground that it was induced by improper means, the trial judge is required to determine the question of fact whether it was or was not voluntary before he permits it to go to the jury. S. v. Litteral, 227 N.C. 527 , 43 S.E. 2d 84 ; S. v. Andrew, 61 N.C. 205 . In making this preliminary inquiry, the judge should afford both the prosecution and the defense a reasonable opportunity to present evidence in the absence of the jury showing the circumstances under which the confession was made. S. v. Gibson, 216 N.C. 535 , 5 S.E. 2d 717 ; S. v. Alston, 215 N.C. 713 , 3 S.E. 2d 11 ; S. v. Smith, 213 N.C. 299 , 195 S.E. 819 ; S. v. Blake, 198 N.C. 547 , 152 S.E. 632 ; S. v. Whitener, 191 N.C. 659 , 132 S.E. 603 . . . .””

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

2. ““But the prisoner’s standing would not be bettered a whit if the record did in fact disclose that he had furnished his footprint to the State under compulsion. The point in principle is decided against the prisoner in the following North Carolina cases: S. v. Riddle, 205 N.C. 591 , 172 S.E. 400 , * * * S. v. Graham, 74 N.C. 646 , 21 Am. Rep. 493 , and S. v. Thompson, 161 N.C. 238 , 76 S.E. 249 , * * * S. v. Garrett, 71 N.C. 85 , * * *. These North Carolina cases are in accord with well considered decisions in other jurisdictions to the effect that the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is not violated by the introduction of evidence of fingerprints to identify the accused, even where the fingerprints of the accused are obtained by coercion.””

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

3. “These cases establish the rule that testimony by a qualified expert that fingerprints found at the scene of the crime correspond with the fingerprints of the accused, when accompanied by substantial evidence of circumstances from which the jury can find that the fingerprints could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed, is sufficient to withstand motion for nonsuit and carry the case to the jury. The soundness of the rule lies in the fact that such evidence logically tends to show that the accused was present and participated in the commission of the crime. What constitutes substantial evidence is a question of law for the court. What the evidence proves or fails to prove is a question of fact for the jury.”

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