Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 274 N.C. 139 - State v. Smith

State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
September 1995
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 1995

4 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

1401968197019801990decided

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. Palmer · State v. Tew · State v. . Combs · State v. . Helms · State v. Mihoy

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

  1. “These cases establish the rule that testimony by a qualified expert that fingerprints found at the scene of the crime correspond with the fingerprints of the accused, when accompanied by substantial evidence of circumstances from which the jury can find that the fingerprints could only have been impressed at the time the crime was committed, is sufficient to withstand motion for nonsuit and carry the case to the jury. The soundness of the rule lies in the fact that such evidence logically tends to show that the accused was present and participated in the commission of the crime. What constitutes substantial evidence is a question of law for the court. What the evidence proves or fails to prove is a question of fact for the jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘To warrant a conviction, the fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused must have been found in the place where the crime was committed under such circumstances that they could only have been impressed at the time when the crime was committed.’ Annot., ‘Evidence— Finger, Palm, or Footprint,’ 28 A.L.R. 2d 1115 , 1154, § 29 (1953). See also State v. Smith, 274 N.C. 159, 164 , 161 S.E. 2d 449, 452 (1968), and authorities there cited.””
    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.