24 N.C. App. 484 - State v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably State v. Joyner (1979), 196 N.C. App. 458 - State v. Osorio (2009)
54 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 5005
Relies on Dorszynski v. United States · State v. Minton · 16 N.C. App. 527 - State v. Wiggins · State v. Keller · 19 N.C. App. 632 - State v. Lyles
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A participant in the commission of a felony may be a principal in the first degree or a principal in the second degree. A person who actually commits the offense or is present with another and does some act which forms á part thereof, although not doing all of the acts necessary to constitute the crime, is a principal in the first degree. One who is actually or constructively present when the crime is committed and aids or abets the other in its commission is a princpal in the second degree. Both are equally guilty. State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716 , 68 S.E. 2d 844 (1952); State v. Keller, 268 N.C. 522 , 151 S.E. 2d 56 (1966). In State v. Allison, 200 N.C. 190 , 156 S.E. 547 (1931), the distinction between principals in the first and second degree was characterized as a distinction without a difference, but the distinction is still maintained in recent decisions. See State v. Wiggins, 16 N.C. App. 527 , 192 S.E. 2d 680 (1972); State v. Lyles, 19 N.C. App. 632 , 199 S.E. 2d 699 (1973). Though ‘principals in the first and second degree’ have disappeared from courtroom parlance, the trial judge has the burden of recognizing the difference where there is evidence that the defendant and another are associated in the perpetration of the crime charged. If the defendant is present with another and with a common purpose does some act which forms a part of the offense charged, the judge must explain and apply the law of ‘acting in concert.’ This would constitute a principal in the first ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the court shall find that the youthful offender will not derive benefit from treatment and supervision pursuant to this Article, then the court may sentence the youthful offender under any other applicable penalty provision.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““Now, members of the jury, for a person to be guilty of a crime, it is not necessary that he, himself, do all of the acts necessary to constitute the crime. If two or more persons act together with a common purpose to commit breaking and entering and larceny, each of them is held responsible for the acts of the other done in the commission of the crime of breaking, or entering and larceny.””
2 later decisions 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.