State v. Ward’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant contends that the expert’s answer that the fatal bullet ‘could have’ been fired from defendant’s gun amounted to no more than mere speculation and therefore was inadmissible under the rule in Lockwood v. McCaskill, 262 N.C. 663 , 138 S.E. 2d 541 (1964). Lockwood , however, requires only that an expert’s opinion that a particular cause ‘might’ or ‘could’ have produced a particular result be based upon a reasonable probability ‘that the result is capable of proceeding from the particular cause as a scientific fact . . . .’ 262 N.C. at 669 , 138 S.E. 2d at 545 . (Emphasis supplied.) Considered contextually, witness Cerwin’s testi mony was to the effect that the fatal bullet, a .22 caliber slug, was capable of being discharged from defendant’s .22 caliber pistol or from any other .22 caliber weapon. Although the witness could have been allowed to express a more positive opinion, if he had had one, as to the causal relationship between defendant’s gun and the bullet removed from the deceased’s body, see State v. Sparks, 285 N.C. 631 , 207 S.E. 2d 712 (1974), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 905 (1976), there was no error in the admission of his testimony that the bullet ‘could have’ been fired from defendant’s pistol. State v. Tilley, 292 N.C. 132 , 232 S.E. 2d 433 (1977). That the testimony might have had little probative value goes to the question of its weight and sufficiency, not its admissibility. See generally 1 Stansbury’s North Carolina Evidence § 137 n. 97 (Bran”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reynolds

2. “Q. And notwithstanding that you were not able to because of the condition of the gun make an absolute final conclusion that these bullets were fired by these guns, state whether or not you formed an opinion satisfactory to yourself as to whether there was anything in your analysis that would be inconsistent with these two bullets, State’s Exhibit 11 and State’s Exhibit No. 15, having both been fired by State’s Exhibit No. 2, the gun? Mr. RAY: Object. COURT: Overruled. Exception No. 23 A. No, there is nothing inconsistent that I found.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Reynolds

3. “Jury instructions; explanation of law; opinion prohibited. — In instructing the jury, the judge must declare and explain the law arising on the evidence. He is not required to state the evidence except to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law to the evidence. He must not express an opinion whether a fact has been proved.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Webb