State v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Defendant also argues that the loss or destruction of the articles of evidence seized at defendant’s home resulted in a violation of his rights to due process and a fair trial under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 19 and 23 of the North Carolina Constitution. “[U]nless a criminal defendant can show bad faith on the part of the police, failure to preserve potentially useful evidence does not constitute a denial of due process of law.” Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 58 , 102 L. Ed. 2d 281, 289 , 109 S. Ct. 333 (1988), quoted in State v. Mlo, 335 N.C. 353, 373 , 440 S.E.2d 98, 108 , cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1224 , 129 L. Ed. 2d 841 , 114 S. Ct. 2716 (1994). The trial court’s finding that there was no showing of bad faith or willful intent on the part of any law enforcement officer is supported by the record. We also note that defendant has not demonstrated that the missing evidence possessed an exculpatory value that was apparent before it was lost. See California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 489 , 81 L. Ed. 2d 413, 422 , 104 S. Ct. 2528 (1984). For these reasons we conclude that the State’s failure to preserve the articles of evidence seized at defendant’s home did not violate his rights to due process and a fair trial.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 262 N.C. App. 650 - State v. Hamilton · 218 N.C. App. 277 - State v. Matthews