State v. Britt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

185 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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The public interests demand that a prosecution be conducted with energy and skill, but the prosecuting officer should see that no unfair advantage is taken of the accused. It is as much his duty to see that a person on trial is not deprived of any of his statutory or constitutional rights as it is to prosecute him for the crime with which he may be charged.”

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

2. “It is the duty of the prosecuting attorney to present the State's case with earnestness and vigor and use every legitimate means to bring about a just conviction. . . . Counsel for both sides are entitled to argue to the jury the law and the facts in evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Craig · State v. Thompson

3. “The trial judge attempted to correct this transgression by sustaining defendant’s objection and twice instructing the jury to disregard defendant’s prior conviction and return a verdict based solely upon the evidence presented in the present trial. Ordinarily, counsel’s improper conduct may be cured by such action by the trial court, see State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499 , 173 S.E. 2d 897 (1970); State v. Correll 229 N.C. 640 , 50 S.E. 2d 717 (1948), since the presumption is that jurors will understand and comply with the instructions of the court. State v. Self, 280 N.C. 665 , 187 S.E. 2d 93 (1972); State v. Long, 280 N.C. 633 , 187 S.E. 2d 47 (1972). We have recognized, however, that some transgressions are so gross and their effect so highly prejudicial that no curative instruction will suffice to remove the adverse impression from the minds of the jurors. See State v. White, 286 N.C. 395 , 211 S.E. 2d 445 (1975); State v. Hines, 286 N.C. 377 , 211 S.E. 2d 201 (1975); State v. Roach, 248 N.C. 63 , 102 S.E. 2d 413 (1958); State v. Smith, 240 N.C. 631 , 83 S.E. 2d 656 (1954); State v. Dockery, supra, State v. Eagle, 233 N.C. 218 , 63 S.E. 2d 170 (1951); State v. Hawley, 229 N.C. 167 , 48 S.E. 2d 35 (1948); State v. Little, supra. A fair consideration of the principles established and applied in these cases constrains us to hold that no instruction by the court could have removed from the minds of the jurors the prejudicial effect that flowed from knowledge of the fact that defe”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 52 N.C. App. 60 - Fidelity Bank v. Garner