State v. MacK’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably State v. Fair (2001), State v. Bishop (1997)
5 federal appellate · 111 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 State v. Williams · State v. Sparrow · State v. Williams · State v. Cradle · State v. Hargett
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Prior statements of a witness which are inconsistent with his present testimony are not admissible as substantive evidence because of their hearsay nature. Even so, such prior inconsistent statements are admissible for the purpose of impeachment. . . . “ ‘. . . [I]f the former statement fails to mention a material circumstance presently testified to, which it would have been natural to mention in the prior statement, the prior statement is sufficiently inconsistent,’ .... [Citations omitted.] [Emphasis added.]””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““The order of proof is a rule of practice resting in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Thomas, 244 N.C. 212 , 93 S.E. 2d 63 (1956). ‘The court, to attain the ends of justice, may in its discretion allow the examination of witnesses at any stage of the trial.’ State v. King, 84 N.C. 737 (1881). The great weight of authority holds that ‘the admission in a criminal prosecution of evidence as a part of the rebuttal, when such evidence would have been properly admissible in chief, rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be interfered with in the absence of gross abuse of that discretion.’ 53 Am. Jur., Trial, § 129. Accord, State v. Mack, 282 N.C. 334 , 193 S.E. 2d 71 (1972); State v. Knight, 282 N.C. 220 , 192 S.E. 2d 283 (1972).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Foster · State v. Britt““It is permissible, for purposes of impeachment, to cross-examine a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, by asking disparaging questions concerning collateral matters relating to his criminal and degrading conduct. State v. Patterson, 24 N.C. 346 (1842) ; State v. Davidson, 67 N.C. 119 (1872) ; State v. Ross, 275 N.C. 550, 553 , 169 S.E. 2d 875, 878 (1969). Such questions relate to matters within the knowledge of the witness, not to accusations of any kind made by others. We do not undertake here to mark the limits of such cross-examination except to say generally (1) the scope thereof is subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and (2) the questions must be asked in good faith.””
2 later decisions 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.