State v. Barton’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably State v. Gregory (1995), State v. Nobles (1999)
57 state decisions
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 Anders v. California · State v. Odom · David W. McKay v. Texas · State v. Hennis · Modjeski & Masters, Applicant, V
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]o rise to the level of plain error, the error in the instructions must be “so fundamental that it denied the defendant a fair trial and quite probably tilted the scales against him.” State v. Collins, 334 N.C. 54, 62 , 431 S.E.2d 188, 193 (1993). Stated another way, the error must be one “so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached.” State v. Bagley, 321 N.C. 201, 213 , 362 S.E.2d 244, 251 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 1036 , 99 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1988).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“are not proper preservation issues because they are not determined solely by principles of law upon which this Court has previously ruled. Rather, these assignments of error are fact specific requiring review of the transcript and record to determine if the assignment has merit. Where counsel determines that an issue of this nature does not have merit, counsel should “omit it entirely from his or her argument on appeal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Locklear · State v. Rowsey““the calling party is ordinarily not permitted ... to question the witness on entirely new matters” on redirect examination. State v. Weeks, 322 N.C. 152, 169 , 367 S.E.2d 895, 905 (1988). However, the decision whether to allow testimony on redirect examination involving matters beyond the scope of the witness’ testimony on direct and cross-examination is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anthony
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.