State v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably State v. Peacock (1985), State v. Rinck (1981)
30 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. Marshall Norman Hicks · State v. Bell · State v. Accor · State v. Duboise · State v. Virgil
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court is required to submit lesser included degrees of the crime charged in the indictment when and only when there is evidence of guilt of the lesser degrees. ... Where all the evidence tends to show that the crime charged in the indictment was committed, and there is no evidence tending to show the commission of a crime of lesser degree, the principle does not apply and it would be erroneous for the court to charge on the unsupported lesser degree. North Carolina v. Simpson, 299 N.C. 377, 381 , 261 S.E.2d 661 (1979).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The failure to define larceny in burglary cases in which larceny is specified as the felony the accused intended to commit is not always prejudicial and does not invariably require a new trial. The extent of the definition required depends upon the evidence in the particular case. State v. Spratt, 265 N.C. 524 , 144 S.E.2d 569 (1965). “In some cases, as where the defense is an alibi or the evidence develops no direct issue or contention that the taking was under a bona fide claim of right or was without any intent to steal, ‘felonious intent’ may be simply defined as an ‘intent to rob’ or ‘intent to steal.’ On the other hand, where the evidence raises a direct issue as to the intent or purpose of the taking, a more comprehensive definition is required.” State v. Mundy, 265 N.C. 528 , 144 S.E.2d 572 (1965) (citations omitted). So it is also with respect to when, and to what extent, the word larceny must be defined and explained in burglary cases. In the case before us, there was no necessity for any definition or explanation of the word “larceny” because there was no evidence suggesting the television was borrowed, or taken for some temporary purpose, or otherwise negating a taking with felonious intent to steal.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robbins“satisfied that 'the jury did not need a formal definition of the term [assault] to understand its meaning and to apply that meaning to the evidence.' " Lucas , 234 N.C.App. at 257 , 758 S.E.2d at 679 (quoting Simpson , 299 N.C. at 384 , 261 S.E.2d at 665 ). The primary purpose of a charge is to aid the jury in arriving at a correct verdict according to law. Lewis v. Watson , 229 N.C. 20 , 47 S.E.2d 484 (1948). "The chief object contemplated in the charge of the judge is to explain the law of the case, to point out the essentials to be proved on the one side and on the other, and to bring into view the relation of the particular evidence adduced to the particular issue involved.”
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.