State v. Pike’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'When the State proposes to offer in evidence the defendant’s confession or admission, and the defendant objects, the proper procedure is for the trial judge to excuse the jury and, in its absence, hear the evidence, both that of the State and that of the defendant, upon the question of the voluntariness of the .statement. In the light of such evidence and of its observation. of the demeanor of the witnesses, the judge must resolve the question of whether the defendant, if he made the statement, made it voluntarily and with understanding. State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Outing, supra; State v. Rogers, supra. The trial judge should make findings of fact with reference to this question and incorporate those findings in the record. Such findings of fact, so made by the trial judge, are conclusive if they are supported by competent evidence in the record. No reviewing court may properly set aside or modify those findings if so supported by competent evidence in the record. State v. Barnes, supra; State v. Chamberlain, supra; State v. Outing, supra; State v. Rogers, supra.’ (Emphasis ours.) State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69 , 150 S.E. 2d 1 . We see no reason why the procedure on motion to suppress evidence because of illegal search and seizure should not be the same as the inquiry by the court into the voluntariness of a confession.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 8 N.C. App. 34 - State v. Wood

2. ““In the case of State v. Myers, 266 N.C. 581 , 146 S.E. 2d 674 , a motion was made to suppress evidence obtained by a search warrant on the ground of insufiiciency of the warrant. The Court, finding the warrant illegal, inter alia, made this pertinent statement: 'In this case, as a matter of procedure, we see no reason why the trial court, in its discretion and on defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, could not conduct a preliminary inquiry relating to the legality of the search in the same manner as the court does in determining the voluntariness of a confession.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 8 N.C. App. 34 - State v. Wood

3. ““It is basic to due process that a defendant in a criminal action be allowed to offer testimony. When the trial judge heard the State’s witness on voir dire, he should have given defendant an opportunity to offer evidence to present his version of the search and seizure or to contradict, amplify, or explain the testimony offered by the State.””

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