41 N.C. App. 729 - State v. Childers’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably State v. Brown (1984), Stone v. State (2002)
46 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 33 N.C. App. 291 - State v. Wiggins · Cooke v. Cooke · State v. Wiggins · State v. Elam · 19 N.C. App. 451 - State v. Elam
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Manufacture” means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance by any means, whether directly or indirectly, artificially or naturally, or by extraction from substances of a natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis; and “manufacture” further includes any packaging or repackaging of the substance or labeling or relabeling of its container except that this term does not include the preparation or compounding of a controlled substance by an individual for his own use ....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The plain meaning of the exception is to avoid making an individual liable for the felony of manufacturing a controlled substance in the situation where, being already in possession of a controlled substance, he makes it ready for use (i.e., rolling marijuana into cigarettes for smoking) or combines it with other ingredients for use (i.e., making the so-called “Alice B. Toklas” brownies containing marijuana).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown · Stone v. State“and thus are more appropriately made felonies without regard to the intent of the person charged with the offense as to whether the controlled substance so “manufactured” was for personal use or for distribution. The burden will, of course, be upon the State to prove from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that, in cases where the defendant is charged with manufacture of a controlled substance and the activity constituting manufacture is preparation or com pounding, that the defendant intended to distribute the controlled substance. ... In those cases where production, propagation, conversion or processing of a controlled substance are involved, the intent of the defendant, either to distribute or consume personally, will be irrelevant and does not form an element of the offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown · State v. Lofton
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.