State v. Roper’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

116 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 121 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Courts have discussed numerous factors which are weighed to determine whether the failure to grant a continuance rises to constitutional dimensions. Of particular importance are the reasons for the requested continuance presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied. A continuance in a criminal trial essentially involves a question of procedural due process. Implicitly, the courts balance the private interest that -will be affected and the risk of erroneous deprivation of that interest through the procedures used against the government interest in fiscal and administrative efficiency. When the individual interest at stake is the defendant’s life or liberty, the individual interest is especially compelling. An interest such as . . . defendant’s life is factored heavily into the analysis. On the other side of the scale, the government has an interest in procuring testimony within a reasonable time.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re DQW · 157 N.C. App. 249 - State v. Barlowe

2. “Do you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstance or circumstances found is, or are, insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstance or circumstances found by you? If you find from the evidence one or more mitigating circumstances, you must weigh the aggravating circumstances against the mitigating circumstances. In deciding this issue, each juror may consider any mitigating circumstance or circumstances that the juror determined to exist by a preponderance of the evidence in Issue Two. In so doing, you are the sole judges of the weight to be given to any individual circumstance which you find, whether aggravating or mitigating. You should not merely add up the number of aggravating circumstances and mitigating circumstances, but rather you must decide from all the evidence what value to give each circumstance, and weigh the aggravating circumstances so valued against the mitigating circumstances so valued, and finally determine whether the mitigating circumstances are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances. If you unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the mitigating circumstances found are insufficient to outweigh the aggravating circumstances found, you would answer Issue Three "yes." If you do not so find or if you have a reasonable doubt as to whether they do, you would answer Issue Three "no." If you answer Issue Three "no," it would be your duty to recommend that the defendant be sentenced to life imprison”

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

3. “In examining the denial of a motion for a continuance for constitutional error, North Carolina case law, like its federal counterpart, implicitly balances the individual interest and the risk of an erroneous deprivation of that interest in light of the procedure being used against the State’s interest in fiscal and administrative efficiency.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 N.C. App. 134 - State v. Walston