State v. Oglesby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] trial court's evidentiary ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress is not sufficient to preserve the issue of admissibility for appeal unless a defendant renews the objection during trial.”

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Strickland · State v. Haugabook

2. “An accused juvenile's rights during a custodial interrogation are codified in N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101, which states in part that `[a]ny juvenile in custody must be advised prior to questioning . . . [t]hat the juvenile has a right to have a parent, guardian, or custodian present during questioning.' N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101(a)(3) (2005) . . . . Before allowing evidence to be admitted from a juvenile's custodial interrogation, a trial court is required to "find that the juvenile knowingly, willingly, and understandingly waived the juvenile's rights." Id. § 7B-2101(d) (2005) . . . . Clearly, defendant was entitled by N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101(a)(3) to have a `parent, guardian, or custodian' present during his interrogation. However, an `aunt' is not an enumerated relation in the statute, and an interpretation of the term `guardian' to encompass anything other than a relationship established by legal process would unjustifiably expand the plain and unambiguous meaning of the word. See Black's Law Dictionary 566 (abr. 7th ed. 2000) (defining `guardian' as `[o]ne who has the legal authority and duty to care for another's person or property' (emphasis added)). We are bound by well-accepted rules of statutory construction to give effect to this plain and unambiguous meaning and we therefore decline any attempt to ascertain a contrary legislative intent. See, e.g., In re A.R.G., 361 N.C. 392, 396 , 646 S.E.2d 349, 351 (2007).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 258 N.C. App. 491 - State v. Benitez · In re M.L.T.H.

3. “An accused juvenile's rights during a custodial interrogation are codified in N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101, which states in part that `[a]ny juvenile in custody must be advised prior to questioning . . . [t]hat the juvenile has a right to have a parent, guardian, or custodian present during questioning.' N.C.G.S. § 7B-2101(a)(3) (2005). . . . Before allowing evidence to be admitted from a juvenile's custodial interrogation, a trial court is required to `find that the juvenile knowingly, willingly, and understandingly waived the juvenile's rights.' Id. § 7B-2101(d) (2005).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re M.L.T.H. · 254 N.C. App. 446 - State v. Saldierna