278 So. 2d 469 - Thomas v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

27 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This Court has consistently reminded the Bench and Bar that specific intent to steal must be shown by the testimony in robbery cases.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McDaniel v. State · 317 So. 2d 715 - Watts v. State

2. “A taking of personal property with felonious intent is an essential element of the offense of armed robbery, of attempt to commit armed robbery, and of common law robbery. The court must so instruct the jury in every robbery case, and must in some sufficient form explain and define the term "felonious intent." The extent of the definition required depends upon the evidence in the particular case. State v. Spratt, N.C., [ 265 N.C. 524 ] 144 S.E.2d 569 . In some cases, as where the defense is an alibi or the evidence develops no direct issue or contention that the taking was under a bona fide claim of right or was without any intent to steal, "felonious intent" may be simply defined as an "intent to rob" or "intent to steal." State v. Spratt, supra. On the other hand, where the evidence raises a direct issue as to the intent and purpose of the taking, a more comprehensive definition is required. State v. Lawrence, 262 N.C. 162 , 136 S.E.2d 595 ; State v. Lunsford, 229 N.C. 229 , 49 S.E.2d 410 . 144 S.E.2d at 574 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Veazy v. State · 590 So. 2d 1374 - Williams v. State

3. “"The court instructs the jury that grand larceny is defined by law as the unlawful and felonious taking and carrying away from any place, at any time, of the personal property of another, of a value of more than $100.00, without his consent, by a person not entitled to possession thereof and with the felonious intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently and to convert it to the use of the taker or of some other person other than the owner. The court further instructs the jury that if you believe from the evidence presented in this case that on or about June 21, 1978, the defendant, Terry L. Stinson, exhibited a handgun toward or shot Kenneth Curtis Johnson but at the time of such exhibition or shooting, if any, the defendant, Terry L. Stinson, did not at that time intend to take from the presence of the said Kenneth Curtis Johnson one 1975 Chevrolet 3/4 ton pick-up of the personal property of another, then it is your sworn duty to find the defendant, Terry L. Stinson, not guilty of armed robbery; but if you believe from the evidence presented and beyond every reasonable doubt that on or about June 21, 1978, that following the exhibition of a gun toward Kenneth Curtis Johnson or the shooting of Kenneth Curtis Johnson the defendant, Terry L. Stinson, left the scene in a 1975 3/4 ton pickup being the personal property of another and later formed an intent to take and carry away said pickup, the personal property of another, of a value of more than $100.00, and with t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 375 So. 2d 235 - Stinson v. State