Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 N.C. 678 - State v. Harrison

State v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Benson (1992), State v. Gell (2000)

40 state decisions

200199120002010decided

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 Fisher v. Oklahoma · State v. Holden · State v. Walker · State v. Ramey · State v. Adcock

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

  1. “[a] witness's prior consistent statements [are] admitted to corroborate the witness's courtroom testimony. Corroborative testimony is testimony which tends to strengthen, confirm, or make more certain the testimony of another witness. Prior statements admitted for corroborative purposes are not to be received as substantive evidence. [I]f the previous statements offered in corroboration are generally consistent with the witness' testimony, slight variations between them will not render the statements inadmissible. Such variations affect only the credibility of the evidence which is always for the jury. .... In a noncapital case, where portions of a statement corroborate and other portions are incompetent because they do not corroborate, the defendant must specifically object to the incompetent portions.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Before deciding that an error by the trial court amounts to 'plain error,' the appellate court must be convinced that absent the error the jury probably would have reached a different verdict.”
    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.