243 N.C. App. 563 - State v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the larceny charge due to a fatal variance between the indictment and the evidence as to the ownership of the stolen property. Defendant's trial counsel failed to raise this issue at trial, so defendant requests that we invoke North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 2, or, alternatively, that we review this issue for ineffective assistance of counsel. N.C. R. App. P. 2 ("To prevent manifest injustice to a party ... either court of the appellate division may ... suspend or vary the requirements or provisions of any of these rules in a case pending before it[.]"). In State v. Gayton-Barbosa , this Court invoked Rule 2 to review a similar fatal variance argument and held that this type of error is "sufficiently serious to justify the exercise of our authority under [ Rule 2 ]." 197 N.C.App. 129 , 134, 676 S.E.2d 586 , 589-90 (2009). Accordingly, we exercise our discretion under Rule 2 to review this issue .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 257 N.C. App. 739 - State v. Campbell · 253 N.C. App. 178 - State v. McNair

2. “Defendant contends ... (3) he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel, because his counsel failed to object to the admission of evidence that defendant had committed a separate breaking or entering offense; (4) the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the larceny charge due to a fatal variance as to the ownership of the property; (5) insufficient evidence supports his larceny conviction; and (6) the trial court violated his constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict with respect to the larceny charge.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 257 N.C. App. 739 - State v. Campbell · State v. Campbell

3. “held that (1) the larceny indictment was valid on its face even though it did not specify that Manna Baptist Church was an entity capable of owning property; and (2) sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for breaking or entering a place of religious worship with intent to commit a larceny therein. State v. Campbell , 368 N.C. 83 , ----, 772 S.E.2d 440 , 444-45 (2015). The North Carolina Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court for consideration of any remaining issues. See id . at ----, 772 S.E.2d at 445 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 257 N.C. App. 739 - State v. Campbell