83 N.C. App. 42 - State v. Thompkins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “evidence tending to show that [the] defendant was seen walking around the [victim's] house with large objects in his hands and that [similar items] were missing supports a finding that [the] defendant committed larceny, and thus supports an inference that he committed the breaking or entering with the intent to commit larceny”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 196 N.C. App. 178 - State v. McNair · 168 N.C. App. 596 - State v. Crump

2. “[t]he intent to commit larceny may be inferred from the fact that the defendant committed larceny.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 196 N.C. App. 178 - State v. McNair · 242 N.C. App. 385 - State v. Weeks

3. “In the present case, after the jury had retired for deliberations, they returned to the courtroom, and the foreman requested to rehear the testimony of Karon Maier and the sheriff’s deputy. The trial judge responded as follows: [‘]A11 right, sir. Let me advise you that — undoubtedly, this request is based upon your observation of the Court Reporter taking down everything that has been said. A transcript has not been prepared. The Court Reporter is making the recordation for appellate review purposes, and it would take a considerable period of time to type that up. Her notes are in a coded form of shorthand, so it is not possible to arrange that. In addition to that, the law will not permit me to bring witnesses back to the stand at this stage and have them repeat as closely as they can what has been stated before. So unfortunately, your only recourse is to recall, as best you can, the testimony as it was presented in open court. I’m sorry that there is no way I can accommodate that request. [’] This response . . . indicates that the trial judge did not exercise his discretion in denying the jury’s request to rehear testimony, but denied the request because he felt that he could not grant it. The trial court’s failure to exercise its discretion constitutes reversible error. The jury requested a review of the testimony of Karon Maier, the only witness to identify defendant as the perpetrator. Whether the jury fully understood her testimony was material to the determination of d”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 196 N.C. App. 22 - State v. Long