State v. Bell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

163 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 163 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Motion to nonsuit in a criminal prosecution is properly denied if there is any competent evidence to support the allegations of the warrant or bill of indictment, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, and giving it the benefit of every reasonable inference fairly deducible therefrom. If there is more than a scintilla of competent evidence to support the allegations of the warrant or bill of indictment, motion to nonsuit is properly denied. And if there is evidence sufficient to support a conviction of the crime charged or an included crime, motion to nonsuit is properly denied. If there is any evidence tending to prove the fact of guilt or which reasonably conduces to this conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not such as merely raises a suspicion or conjecture of guilt, it is for the jury to say whether they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the fact of guilt. A like rule applies when the state relies upon circumstantial evidence; in such instance it is for the court to determine whether the circumstantial evidence, either alone or in combination with the direct evidence, provides substantial proof of each essential element of the offense, it being for the jury to determine whether such evidence points unerringly to defendant’s guilt and excludes any other reasonable hypothesis. Decisions to the effect that the court must determine, in passing upon a motion to non-suit, whether the circumstantial evidence excludes”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 15 N.C. App. 296 - State v. McCuien

2. “We are advertent to the intimation in some of the decisions involving circumstantial evidence that to withstand a motion for nonsuit the circumstances must be inconsistent with innocence and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. We think the correct rule is given in S. v. Simmons, 240 N.C. 780 , 83 S.E. 2d 904 , quoting from S. v. Johnson, 199 N.C. 429 , 154 S.E. 730 : “If there be any evidence tending to prove the fact in issue or which reasonably conduces to its conclusion as a fairly logical and legitimate deduction, and not merely such as raises a suspicion or conjecture in regard to it, the case should be submitted to the jury.” The above is another way of saying there must be substantial evidence of all material elements of the offense to withstand the motion to dismiss. It is immaterial whether the substantial evidence is circumstantial or direct, or both. To hold that the court must grant a motion to dismiss unless, in the opinion of the court, the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence would in effect constitute the presiding judge the trier of facts. Substantial evidence of guilt is required before the court can send the case to the jury. Proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required before the jury can convict. What is substantial evidence is a question of law for the court. What that evidence proves or fails to prove is a question of fact for the jury.”

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

3. ““In S. v. Coffey, 255 N.C. 293 , 121 S.E. 2d 736 , the Court, after quoting the second sentence of G.S. 15-27.1, said: “ ‘To render evidence incompetent under the foregoing section, it must have been obtained (1) “in the course of . . . search,” (2) “under conditions requiring a search warrant,” and (3) without a legal search warrant. The purpose of this and similar enactments (G.S. 15-27) was “to change the law of evidence in North Carolina, and not the substantive law as to what constitutes legal or illegal search.” Therefore a search that was legal without a warrant before these enactments is still .legal, and evidence so obtained still competent. 30 N. C. Law Review 421. It will be noted that the statutes use the phrase “under conditions requiring a search warrant.” No search warrant is required where the officer “sees or has absolute personal knowledge” that there is intoxicating liquor in an automobile. . . .” State v. Stevens, 264 N.C. 737 , 142 S.E. 2d 588 . See also State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25 , 153 S.E. 2d 741 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Leach