State v. Howell’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1977 · most notably Barnette v. Woody (1955), State v. Winford (1971)
26 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Bright · State v. . Benson · State v. Stroupe · State v. . Johnson · State v. Powell
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . [I]n applying the law to the facts the court charged the jury that the defendant must show beyond a reasonable doubt facts and circumstances sufficient to reduce the crime to manslaughter, and in so charging the court committed prejudicial error. “Even if the court before and after in its charge stated the general principle of law correctly that the defendant must show to the satisfaction of the jury facts and circumstances sufficient to reduce the crime to manslaughter, yet that did not cure the error in the vital part of its charge when it applied the law to the facts, by requiring the defendant to show those facts beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court has uniformly held that where the court charges correctly in one part of the charge, and incorrectly in another part, it will cause a new trial, since the jury may have acted upon the incorrect part of the charge. S. v. Morgan, 136 N.C. 628 , 48 S.E. 670 ; S. v. Isley, 221 N.C. 213 , 19 S.E. 2d 875 ; S. v. Johnson, 227 N.C. 587 , 42 S.E. 2d 685 ; S. v. McDay, 232 N.C. 388 , 61 S.E. 2d 86 ; S. v. Strowpe, 238 N.C. 34 , 76 S.E. 2d 313 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Winford““I charge you, gentlemen, that if you find from the evidence or from the admissions of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, Harry Howell, killed the deceased, Larry Graham, that he killed him intentionally, that he killed him in the heat of passion by reason of anger suddenly aroused on account of the assault which deceased was making upon the defendant, Harry Howell, and before a sufficient time had elapsed for the passion to subside and reason to resume its habitual control, then the defendant would be guilty of manslaughter, and if you so find it would be your duty to render a verdict of guilty of manslaughter against the defendant unless the defendant has satisfied you that he killed the deceased, Larry Graham, in self-defense.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Winford
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.