State v. Stepney’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
214 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 214 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably State v. Barfield (1979), State v. Covington (1976)
214 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Chapman v. State of California · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Stovall v. Denno
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 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he trial judge, even upon a general objection only, should conduct a voir dire in the absence of the jury, find facts, and thereupon determine the admissibility of in-court identification testimony.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“If there were any conflicts in the evidence or any suggestion whatever in the entire record that the lineup was unfairly conducted or that the defendant did not waive his right to counsel thereat, as the State’s evidence clearly shows he did, we would reverse the conviction and grant a new trial because of the failure of the trial judge to find the crucial facts. Where, however, as here, there is no conflict in the evidence, it is abundantly clear that the defendant did waive his right to counsel at the lineup, it is equally clear that the lineup was conducted fairly and without prejudice to him, and perfectly obvious that the in-court identification was not fruit of the lineup but had its in dependent origin in the witness’ observation of the crime itself, this failure of the trial court to insert such findings into the record must be deemed harmless error. . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Covington““A suspect has no constitutional right to the presence of counsel when eyewitnesses are viewing photographs for purposes of identification, and this is true regardless of whether he is at liberty or in custody at the time. State v. Accor and Moore, 277 N.C. 65 , 175 S.E. 2d 583 (1970); State v. Jacobs, 277 N.C. 151 , 176 S.E. 2d 744 (1970). Such pretrial identification procedure is not a critical stage of the proceeding as delineated in United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 (1967), and Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 (1967).” State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306, 313 , 185 S.E. 2d 844 (1972).”
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.