State v. Wiggins’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. “1) the unlawful taking or attempt to take personal property from the person or in the presence of another; 2) by use or threatened use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon; 3) whereby the life of a person is endangered or threatened.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 264 N.C. App. 217 - State v. Cox · 193 N.C. App. 753 - State v. Corry

2. ““The decision of whether to grant a new trial in a criminal case on the ground of newly discovered evidence is within the trial court’s discretion and is not subject to review absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Findings of fact made by the trial court are binding on appeal if they are supported by the evidence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 153 N.C. App. 770 - State v. Stukes · 219 N.C. App. 599 - State v. Rhodes

3. “[the] [defendant contended] that the State deliberately prevented him from having a probable cause hearing thereby depriving him of a valuable tool of discovery. A probable cause hearing may afford the opportunity for a defend-ant to discover the strengths and weaknesses of the State’s case. However, discovery is not the purpose for such a hearing. The function of a probable cause hearing is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. The establishment of probable cause ensures that a defendant will not be unjustifiably put to the trouble and expense of trial. In the case sub judice, probable cause that a crime was committed and that defendant committed it was twice established. Defendant was arrested upon warrants, and the magistrate issuing these warrants was required by statute to first determine the existence of probable cause. Further, defendant was tried upon indictments returned by a grand jury and that body had the function of determining the existence of probable cause. There is no constitutional requirement for a preliminary hearing, and it is well settled that there is no necessity for a preliminary hearing after a grand jury returns a bill of indictment. We are aware of the provisions of G.S. 15A-605 which provide, in part, that the judge must schedule a preliminary hearing unless the defendant waives in writing his right to such a hearing and absent such waiver the district court jud”

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