85 N.C. App. 1 - State v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 89 N.C. App. 584 - State v. Jones (1988), 89 N.C. App. 212 - State v. Bailey (1988)
72 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 Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Bullard · Beal v. Franklin · State v. Brown · State v. Wilkerson
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U]ntil now, our courts have not been presented with the question of admissibility of expert testimony on the credibility of children in general who relate stories of sexual abuse. Dr. Scott testified that children don't make up stories about sexual abuse and that the younger the child, the more believable the story. 5 He did not testify to the credibility of the victim but to the general credibility of children who report sexual abuse. Since such testimony was Dr. Scott's interpretation of facts within his expertise, and not his opinion upon the credibility of the specific victim, it is not excluded by Rule 405. The proper test of its admissibility is whether he was in a better position to have an opinion than the jury. In other words, was Dr. Scott's opinion helpful to the jury? We determine that it was. The nature of the sexual abuse of children ... places lay jurors at a disadvantage. Common experience generally does not provide a background for understanding the special traits of these witnesses. Such an understanding is relevant as it would help the jury determine the credibility of a child who complains of sexual abuse. The young child ... subjected to sexual abuse may be unaware or uncertain of the criminality of the abuser's conduct. Thus, the child may delay reporting the abuse. In addition, the child may delay reporting the abuse because of confusion, guilt, fear or shame. The victim may also recant the story or, particularly because of youth ..., be unable to reme”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“the element of “substantially incapable of... resisting the ... sexual act” is not negated by the victim’s ability to verbally protest or even to engage in some physical resistance of the abuse. The words “substantially incapable” show the Legislature’s intent to include within the definition of “mentally [disabled]” those persons who by reason of their mental retardation or disorder would give little or no physical resistance to a sexual act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the record show[ed] there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to determine she was competent to testify [as]... [s]he was able to tell the court where she went to school, name her teachers, tell how old she was, when her birthday was, and what month it was during the trial. [Furthermore, s]he said she knew it was bad to tell a lie and was able also to say whether a statement told her was a lie or the truth.”
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.