65 N.C. App. 788 - State v. Milam’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 1988
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Ahearn · State v. Jones · State v. Chatman · 47 N.C. App. 196 - Marsico v. Adams
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“COURT: Well, I’ve got some aggravating and mitigating circumstances that I’ve got to have cleared up. . . . Let the record reflect that this is a Class H felony. The maximum sentence is 10 years, the presumptive sentence is 3. As a mitigating factor the Court finds that . . . [a]s to number 3 you’re speaking of, . . . the defendant committed the offense under duress which was insufficient to constitute defense, but significantly reduced the culpability, I would say in answer to that one, that the jury has answered that one by not convicting him of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. That takes care of that. Number 5, the defendant committed the offense under threats which was [sic] insufficient to constitute an offense, but sufficiently — / think the same thing there that the jury saw fit to reduce the charge with intent to kill to assault inflicting serious injury. Number 9, that you spoke of the defendant was suffering from a mental condition that was insufficient to constitute a defense by significantly reducing this culpability for the defense. I find the same situation in that. The jury reducted [sic] it or found the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[s]uch an inference from the bare fact that the jury returned a verdict of guilty of a lesser included offense is untenable, as it would negate the possibility of a defendant receiving the benefit of consideration of otherwise clearly established factors in mitigation whenever a verdict of guilty of a lesser included offense ... is returned. There is no indication contained in the Fair Sentencing Act that the Legislature intended this result, and it is clear that such an application of its provisions would “eviscerate” the Act just as surely as would the failure of the trial judge to find the mitigating factor in the first instance.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.