State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When one is taken into police custody for an offense of which intoxication is an essential element, time is of the essence. Intoxication does not last. Ordinarily a drunken man will ‘sleep it off in a few hours. Thus, if one accused of driving while intoxicated is to have witnesses for his defense, he must have access to his counsel, friends, relatives, or some disinterested person within a relatively short time after his arrest. The statute says he is entitled to communicate with them immediately, and this is true whether he is arrested at 2:00 in the morning or 2:00 in the afternoon. “Defendant’s guilt or innocence depends upon whether he was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. His condition was then the crucial and decisive fact to be proven. Permission to communicate with counsel and friends is of no avail if those who come to the jail in response to a prisoner’s call are not permitted to see for themselves whether he is intoxicated. In this factual situation, the right of a defendant to communicate with counsel and friends implies, at the very least, the right to have them see him, observe and examine him, with reference to his alleged intoxication.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 253 N.C. App. 306 - State v. Cox · 105 N.C. App. 658 - State v. Ham

2. “[T]he rule we now formulate will be uniformly applicable hereafter. It may well be that here “the criminal is to go free because the constable blundered.” People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. 13, 21 , 150 N.E. 585, 587 . Notwithstanding, when an officer’s blunder deprives a defendant of his only opportunity to obtain evidence which might prove his innocence, the State will not be heard to say that such evidence did not exist. In Re Newbern, 175 Cal. App. 2d 862 , 1 Cal. Rptr. 80 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 261 N.C. App. 71 - State v. Ledbetter · 253 N.C. App. 306 - State v. Cox

3. “"G.S. § 7A-453. Duty of custodian of a possibly indigent person; determination of indigency. — . . . . "(b) In districts which do not have a public defender, the authority having custody of a person who is without counsel for more than 48 hours after being taken into custody shall so inform the clerk of superior court. The clerk shall make a preliminary determination as to the person's entitlement to counsel and so inform any district or superior court judge holding court in the county. The judge so informed may assign counsel. The court shall make the final determination. "(c) In any district, if a defendant, upon being taken into custody, states that he is indigent and desires counsel, the authority having custody shall immediately inform the defender or the clerk of superior court, as the case may be, who shall take action as provided in this section. "(d) The duties imposed by this section upon authorities having custody of persons who may be indigent are in addition to the duties imposed upon arresting officers under G.S. 15-47." "G.S. § 15-47. Arresting officer to inform offender of charge, allow bail except in capital cases, and permit communication with counsel or friends. — . . [A]nd it shall be the duty of the officer making the arrest to permit the person so arrested to communicate with counsel and friends immediately, and the right of such persons to communicate with counsel and friends shall not be denied." (Repealed by Chapter 1286, Session Laws 1973, effective ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Avery · State v. Torres