State v. Swaringen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendants’ pleas of not guilty put in issue each essential element of the crimes charged. S. v. McLamb, 235 N.C. 251 , 69 S.E. 2d 537 ; S. v. Cuthrell, 233 N.C. 274 , 63 S.E. 2d 549 ; S. v. Brown, 225 N.C. 22 , 33 S.E. 2d 121 ; S. v. Yow, 227 N.C. 585 , 42 S.E. 2d 661 . The State had the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime. Proof must be made without intimation or suggestion from the court that the controverted facts have or have not been established. G.S. 1-180. The assumption by the court that any fact controverted by a plea of not guilty has been established is prejudicial error. S. v. Cuthrell, 235 N.C. 173 , 69 S.E. 2d 233 ; S. v. Love, 229 N.C. 99 ; 47 S.E. 2d 712 ; S. v. Snead, 228 N.C. 37 , 44 S.E. 2d 359 ; S. v. Minton, 228 N.C. 15 , 44 S.E. 2d 346 ; Ward v. Mfg. Co., 123 N.C. 248 . The fact that the expression of opinion was unintentional or inadvertent does not make it less prejudicial. S. v. Canipe, 240 N.C. 60 , 81 S.E. 2d 173 ; Miller v. R.R., 240 N.C. 617 , 83 S.E. 2d 533 ; S. v. Shinn, 234 N.C. 397 , 67 S.E. 2d 270 ; S. v. Simpson, 233 N.C. 438 , 64 S.E. 2d 568 . Nor does the manner in which counsel examines the witnesses or argues the case to the jury justify the court in assuming the existence of an essential fact. S. v. Ellison, 226 N.C. 628 , 39 S.E. 2d 824 . There must be a judicial admission before the existence of an essential element of a crime can be stated as a fact. S. v. Hairr, supra [ 244 N.C. 506 , 94 S.E.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2 N.C. App. 605 - State v. Patton · 14 N.C. App. 62 - State v. Whitted

2. ““Now, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, the Court instructs you that upon this evidence you may return a verdict of guilty or not guilty bearing in mind the only question that you are to consider and the only question that you are to decide is whether or not at the time the defendant was arrested or attempted to be arrested by Officer Pearce, he had drunk a sufficient quantity of alcoholic beverage to cause him to lose the normal control of either his physical faculties or his mental faculties or both to an appreciable extent.” [Emphasis ours.]”

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