State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Parker , North Carolina joined the national trend expanding the corpus delicti rule to allow a defendant’s extrajudicial confession to sustain a conviction when the trustworthiness of the confession is substantiated by evidence aliunde. 315 N.C. 222 , 337 S.E.2d 487 . Parker held that in noncapital cases, a conviction can stand if “the accused’s confession is supported by substantial independent evidence tending to establish its trustworthiness, including facts that tend to show the defendant had the opportunity to commit the crime.” Id. at 236 , 337 S.E.2d at 495 . Furthermore, Parker emphasizes “that when independent proof of loss or injury is lacking, there must be strong corroboration of essential facts and circumstances embraced in the defendant’s confession.” Id.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sweat · State v. Cox

2. “(1) the defendant engaged in a sexual act with a victim who is under the age of thirteen, and (2) the defendant is at least twelve years old and at least four years older than the victim. A sexual act, as defined by statute, means “cunnilingus, fellatio, analingus, or anal intercourse, but does not include vaginal intercourse. Sexual act also means the penetration, however slight, by any object into the genital or anal opening of another person’s body[.]” Fellatio is defined as “any touching of the male sexual organ by the lips, tongue, or mouth of another person.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Sweat · 234 N.C. App. 431 - State v. Parks

3. ““[a] reversal for plain error is only appropriate in the most exceptional cases.” Plain error analysis should be applied cautiously and only when “after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is. a ‘fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.’ ” An appellate court “must be convinced that absent the error the jury probably would have reached a different verdict.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 198 N.C. App. 22 - State v. Yarborough · 196 N.C. App. 178 - State v. Canady