Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 295 N.C. 21 - State v. Stevens

State v. Stevens’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
3
states following
August 2010
most recently cited

57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably State v. Alston (1983), State v. Robbins (1987)

57 state decisions

30019781980199020002010decided

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 Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Harris v. New York · Dutton v. Evans · Douglas v. Alabama

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

  1. “The dying declarations of a deceased person regarding the cause or circumstances of his death shall be admissible in evidence in all civil and criminal trials and other proceedings before courts, administrative agencies and other tribunals to the same extent and for the same purposes that they might have been admissible had the deceased survived and been sworn as a witness in the proceedings, subject to proof that: (1) At the time of the making of such declaration the deceased was conscious of approaching death and believed there was no hope of recovery; (2) Such declaration was voluntarily made.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is implicit in the district attorney’s statement to the court that his intention not to offer the questioned evidence was conditional. Obviously, he did intend to use the statements on rebuttal if defendant took the stand and gave testimony inconsistent with them. It is equally obvious that the district attorney could not know whether defendant would take the stand until defendant either did so or rested his case without having testified. This uncertainty, however, differs little from that which surrounds many decisions the prosecutor must make with reference to the introduction of available evidence. To adopt the district attorney’s analysis of G.S. 15A-903(a)(2) would mean that a judge could rarely hold that a district attorney had intended to use a withheld statement at trial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““We have now concluded that the statutory prerequisites that the deceased must have been ‘conscious of approaching death and believed that there was no hope of recovery’ do not change our case-law requirements that in order to be ad missible the declarations of a decedent must have been ‘in present anticipation of death.’ ” (Citations omitted.)”
    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.