State v. Littlejohn’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably State v. Gibbs (1993), State v. Bindyke (1975)
32 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. Smith · State v. McMilliam · State v. McCullough · State v. Potter · State v. . Raper
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The existence of a conspiracy may not be established by the ex parte declaration of an alleged conspirator made in the absence of his alleged coconspirators. Only evidence of acts committed and declarations made by one of the coconspira-tors, after the conspiracy is formed is competent against all, and then only when the declarations are made or the acts are committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. State v. Potter, 252 N.C. 312 , 113 S.E. 2d 573 ; Stansbury: North Carolina Evidence (2d Ed.), § 173, pp. 442-3; 1 Strong: N.C. Index, Conspiracy, § 5, pp. 509, 510. “A declaration or act of one conspirator, to be admissible against his coconspirators, must have been made when the conspiracy was still in existence or in progress. Hence, the declaration or act of one is not admissible in evidence as against other members of the conspiracy if it was made after the termination of the conspiracy. . . . This is true whether the conspiracy is terminated by the achievement of its purpose or by the failure to achieve it. And a confession or admission by one conspirator, after he has been apprehended, is not in furtherance of the conspiratorial purpose, but in frustration of it, and his confession is not admissible against others in the conspiracy.” 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Conspiracy, § 40, p. 148.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Though the court below, in denying [the defendants'] motion for nonsuit, acted upon evidence which we now hold to be incompetent, yet if this evidence had not been admitted, the State might have followed a different course and produced competent evidence tending to establish [each element of the offense].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act in an unlawful way or by unlawful means.”
1 later decision 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.