State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 164 N.C. App. 254 - State v. Bush (2004), 139 N.C. App. 18 - State v. Bowen (2000)
51 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. Sparrow · State v. . Jackson · State v. Thorpe · State v. Perry · State v. Cooper
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the indictment's allegations do not conform to the 'equivalent material aspects of the jury charge,' this discrepancy is considered a fatal variance.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“It has long been the law of this State that a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged in the warrant or bill of indictment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The requirements of a valid indictment are that it be sufficiently certain in the statement of the accusation so as to identify the offense with which the accused is charged; to protect the accused from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; to enable the accused to prepare for trial and to enable the court on conviction or plea of guilty to pronounce sentence according to the rights of the case. ... An indictment that does not accurately and clearly allege all of the elements of the offense is inadequate to support a conviction. ... Finally, the failure of the allegations to conform to the equivalent material aspects of the jury charge represents a fatal variance, and renders the indictment insufficient to support that resulting conviction. ... Because the jury in this case was instructed and reached its verdict on the basis of the elements set out in N.C.G.S. § 14.27.2(a)(1), whereas defendant had been charged with rape on the basis of the elements set out in N.C.G.S. § 14-27.2(a)(2) [by means of force] ..., the indictment under which [the] defendant was brought to trial cannot be considered to have been a valid basis on which to rest the judgment. Therefore, we hold that the instructions given to the jury pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 14-27.2(a)(1) were fundamentally in error.”
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.