State v. Reese’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
138 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably State v. Syriani (1993), State v. Barnes (1997)
138 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Johnson v. Zerbst · Faretta v. California · Edwards v. Arizona · Brady v. United States
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ll contradictions in the evidence are to be resolved in the State’s favor. State v. Brown, 310 N.C. 563 , 313 S.E.2d 585 (1984). All reasonable inferences based upon the evidence are to be indulged in. Id. . . . [W]hile the State may base its case on circumstantial evidence requiring the jury to infer elements of the crime, that evidence must be real and substantial and not merely speculative. Substantial evidence is evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find the fact to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Pridgen, 313 N.C. 80 , 326 S.E.2d 618 (1985); State v. Jones, 303 N.C. 500 , 279 S.E.2d 835 (1981).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“When challenges for cause are supported by prospective jurors' answers to questions propounded by the prosecutor and by the court, the court does not abuse its discretion, at least in the absence of a showing that further questioning by defendant would likely have produced different answers, by refusing to allow the defendant to question the juror challenged.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown · State v. McNeil“While there was circumstantial evidence that might have created a suspicion — even a strong suspicion — that defendant probably participated in the stabbing, there was no direct evidence of defendant’s participation in the stabbing; certainly nothing to show that defendant himself stabbed [the victim],... While the State is entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence to show either the mens rea or the actus reus of the crime, this evidence must be substantial and real, not speculative. An examination of the evidence in the record before us convinces us that there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could determine beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant participated in the killing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Wilson
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.