State v. Phipps’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

91 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after [defendant had] been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 158 N.C. App. 1 - State v. Davis · 195 N.C. App. 459 - In the Matter of Cg

2. “Under North Carolina and federal law a lesser included offense instruction is required if the evidence “would permit a jury rationally to find [defendant] guilty of the lesser offense and acquit him of the greater.” Strickland, 307 N.C. at 286 , 298 S.E.2d at 654 , quoting Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625, 635 , 65 L. Ed. 2d 392, 401 (1980). The test is whether there “is the presence, or absence, of any evidence in the record which might convince a rational trier of fact to convict the defendant of a less grievous offense.” State v. Wright, 304 N.C. 349, 351 , 283 S.E.2d 502, 503 (1981). Where the State’s evidence is positive as to each element of the offense charged and there is no contradictory evidence relating to any element, no instruction on a lesser included offense is required. State v. Peacock, 313 N.C. 554 , 330 S.E.2d 190 (1985). It is well settled that “a defendant is entitled to have all lesser degrees of offenses supported by the evidence submitted to the jury as possible alternative verdicts.” State v. Palmer, 293 N.C. 633, 643-44 , 239 S.E.2d 406, 413 (1977). On the other hand, the trial court need not submit lesser included degrees of a crime to the jury “when the State’s evidence is positive as to each and every element of the crime charged and there is no conflicting evidence relating to any element of the charged crime." State v. Drumgold, 297 N.C. 267, 271 , 254 S.E.2d 531, 533 (1979), quoting State v. Harvey, 281 N.C. 1, 13-14 , 187 S.E.2d 706, 714 (1972) (”

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

3. “A defendant who wishes to raise an issue for the jury as to whether he was so intoxicated by the voluntary consumption of alcohol that he did not form a deliberate and premeditated intent to kill has the burden of producing evidence, or relying on evidence produced by the state, of his intoxication. Evidence of mere intoxication, however, is not enough to meet defendant’s burden of production. He must produce substantial evidence which would support a conclusion by the judge that he was so intoxicated that he could not form a deliberate and premeditated intent to kill. The evidence must show that at the time of the killing the defendant’s mind and reason were so completely intoxicated and overthrown as to render him utterly incapable of forming a deliberate and premeditated purpose to kill. In absence of some evidence of intoxication to such degree, the court is not required to charge the jury thereon. State v. Strickland, 321 N.C. 31, 41 , 361 S.E.2d 882, 888 (1987) [(citations omitted)] (quoting State v. Medley, 295 N.C. 75, 79 , 243 S.E.2d 374, 377 (1978)).”

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