State v. Aguallo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

54 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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “By defendant's second assignment of error, he contends that the pediatrician's testimony that the results of the physical examination were consistent with the victim's pre-examination statement was a comment on the victim's truthfulness or the guilt or innocence of defendant. We disagree. "Dr. Sinal, who performed a complete examination of the victim, testified that there had been a 'lacerational cut' in the hymen area of the child. When asked if the findings from the physical examination were consistent with what the child had told her, the doctor responded affirmatively. At a later time during direct examination, the prosecutor again asked the doctor if, in her opinion, the lacerations and adhesions she found were consistent with what the child had told her. Over objection she responded, 'I felt it was consistent with her history.' Defendant relies on a line of cases in which this Court has held it reversible error for medical experts to testify as to the veracity of the victim. This Court has found reversible error when experts have testified that the victim was believable, had no record of lying, and had never been untruthful. This case, however, is distinguishable. Essentially, the doctor testified that the physical trauma revealed by her examination of the child was consistent with the abuse the child alleged had been inflicted upon her. We find this vastly different from an expert stating on examination that the victim is 'believable' or 'is not lying.' The latter scen”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 167 N.C. App. 371 - State v. ENGLEBERT · State v. McKoy

2. “In considering this assignment of error, we find instructive this Court’s decision in State v. Phifer, 290 N.C. 203 , 225 S.E.2d 786 (1976). There, the defendant objected to the trial judge’s decision to allow into evidence the testimony of two SBI agents. One agent gave his opinion as to whether the washing of one’s hands would destroy any possibility of a valid gun residue test, and a second agent explained the differences between a latent lift and a fingerprint. Neither of the agents had been formally qualified as experts. We held that because of the nature of their jobs and the experience which they had, they were better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on these matters. Id. at 213 , 225 S.E.2d at 793 . The Court further held that because the defendant never requested a finding by the trial court as to the witnesses’ qualifications as experts, such a finding was deemed implicit in the ruling admitting the opinion testimony. Id. at 213-14 , 225 S.E.2d at 793 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 N.C. App. 641 - State v. Sexton · 116 N.C. App. 534 - State v. Westall

3. “[t]he nature of [the experts'] jobs and the experience which they possess[ ] ma[k]e them better qualified than the jury to form an opinion as to the characteristics of abused children.”

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