State v. Miley’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 1995
22 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 · Jackson v. Denno · Kennedy v. Powell · United States v. Tucker · State v. Gray
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In connection with the issue of defendant’s statement to the police, defendant contends that the trial court should have submitted the question of voluntariness to the jury. Counsel for defendant, citing State v. Hill, 276 N.C. 1 , 170 S.E. 2d 885 (1969), concedes that the present law in North Carolina does not require the issue of voluntariness of the confession to be submitted to the jury, but requests that this Court reconsider its position on this question. In State v. Hill, supra, at 14-15, 170 S.E. 2d at 894 , Justice Higgins, speaking for the Court, said: ‘Defense counsel also argue that the voluntariness of the confession should have been one of the issues submitted to the trial jury. Under North Carolina procedure, voluntariness is a preliminary question to be passed on by the trial judge in the absence of the jury. State v. Vickers, 274 N.C. 311 , 163 S.E. 2d 481 ; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69 , 150 S.E. 2d 1 ; State v. Barnes, 264 N.C. 517 , 142 S.E. 2d 344 . This procedure, we think, is approved by the Supreme Court of the United States. In Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (Footnote 19), the Court uses this language: “. . . [T]he states are free to allocate functions between the judge and the jury as they see fit.” ’ We see no reason to change this well established rule and refrain from doing so in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Barnett
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.