State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

85 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this jurisdiction wide latitude is given to counsel in the argument of contested cases. Moreover, what constitutes an abuse of this privilege must ordinarily be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Bowen, 230 N.C. 710 , 55 S.E.2d 466 . . . ."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Barbour · State v. Carey

2. ““In this jurisdiction wide latitude is given to counsel in the argument of contested cases. Moreover, what constitutes an abuse of this privilege must ordinarily be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Bowen, 230 N.C. 710 , 55 S.E. 2d 466 ; State v. Christopher, supra [ 258 N.C. 249 , 128 S.E. 2d 667 ]. However, it is the duty of the judge to interfere when the remarks of counsel are not warranted, by the evidence and are calculated to mislead or prejudice the jury, the argument and conduct of counsel being largely in the control and discretion of the presiding judge. State v. Correll, 229 N.C. 640 , 50 S.E. 2d 717 . Ordinarily, exceptions to improper remarks of counsel during argument must be taken before verdict. State v. Hawley, 229 N.C. 167 , 48 S.E. 2d 35 ; State v. Tyson, 133 N.C. 692 , 45 S.E. 838 . Such exceptions, like those to the admission of incompetent evidence, must be made in apt time or else be lost. This general rule has been modified in recent years so that it does not apply to death cases where the argument of counsel is so prejudicial to defendant that in this Court’s opinion it is doubted that the prejudicial effect of such argument could have been removed from the jurors’ minds by any instruction the trial judge might have given. State v. Miller, 271 N.C. 646 , 157 S.E. 2d 335 ; State v. Dockery, 238 N.C. 222 , 77 S.E. 2d 664 .””

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

3. “"Pursuant to the mandate of the Supreme Court of the United States, this cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Edgecombe County with directions to proceed as follows: "1. The presiding judge of the Superior Court of Edgecombe County will cause to be served on the defendant, Marie Hill, and on her attorneys of record, notice to appear during a session of said superior court at a designated time, not less than ten days from the date of the order, at which time, in open court, the defendant, Marie Hill, being present in person and being represented by her attorneys, the presiding judge, based on the verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree returned by the jury at the trial at the December 16, 1968 Criminal Session, will pronounce judgment that the defendant, Marie Hill, be imprisoned for life in the State's prison. "2. The presiding judge of the Superior Court of Edgecombe County will issue a writ of habeas corpus to the official having custody of the defendant, Marie Hill, to produce her in open court at the time and for the purpose of being present when the judgment imposing life imprisonment is pronounced. "Remanded for judgment."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Childs