Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 259 N.C. App. 682 - State v. McDaniel

259 N.C. App. 682 - State v. McDaniel’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. Fritsch · 186 N.C. App. 57 - State v. Smith · State v. Wilson · State v. Maines · 143 N.C. App. 485 - State v. Pickard

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

  1. “Defendant admitted she alone had transported the items that had been stolen on or about 20 March 2014 in her truck and she had unloaded them at the Ridge Street address. Her possession of the recently stolen goods was exclusive and 100% within her control at that time. Whether the two weeks, which may have passed between the breaking and entering and larceny and the discovery of the property being stolen, and Defendant's admitted possession, is too remote to apply the doctrine of recent possession was a proper question for the jury and does not support vacating Defendant's conviction as a matter of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “(1) the property described in the indictment was stolen; (2) the stolen goods were found in defendant's custody and subject to his control and disposition to the exclusion of others though not necessarily found in defendant's hands or on his person so long as he had the power and intent to * control the goods; ... and (3) the possession was recently after the larceny, mere possession of stolen property being insufficient to raise a presumption of guilt.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “It is not always necessary that the stolen property be actually in the hands of the defendant in order to trigger the inference that he is the thief. The doctrine [of recent possession] is equally applicable where the stolen property is under the defendant's personal control [in the form of the defendant's girlfriend wearing the stolen watch several weeks after the alleged theft].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.