State v. Hammond’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably State v. Harris (1983), State v. Chatman (1983)
38 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 Wong Sun v. United States · United States v. Wade · Simmons v. United States · Beal v. Franklin · State v. Henderson
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“excluded as violating a defendant's rights to due process where the facts reveal a pretrial identification procedure so impermissibly suggestive that there is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The rule is as quoted in State v. Jones, 280 N.C. 322, 339-340 , 185 S.E. 2d 858, 869 (1972): “It is elementary that, ‘nothing else appearing, the admission of incompetent evidence is not ground for a new trial where there was no objection at the time the evidence was offered.’ . . . An assertion in this Court by the appellant that evidence, to the introduction of which he interposed no objection, was obtained in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States, or under the Constitution of this State, does not prevent the operation of this rule.” See State v. Lowery, 286 N.C. 698 , 213 S.E. 2d 255 (1975); State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541 , 196 S.E. 2d 725 (1973); 4 Strong’s North Carolina Index 3d Criminal Law § 162 (1976).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Jordan“In [Hammond], the defendant similarly objected prior to an in-court identification, and a voir dire was held. After the voir dire, however, the defendant failed to object once the identification was actually made in the presence of the jury. This Court held that defendant’s failure to object to the witness’s identification during trial waived defendant’s right to have the propriety of the in-court identification considered on appeal.”
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.