Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 N.C. App. 13 - State v. Brown

87 N.C. App. 13 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
September 2014
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2014

10 state decisions

601987199020002010decided

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 State v. Smith · State v. Cooke · State v. Brown · State v. Witherspoon · State v. Parker

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

  1. “(a) A defendant has the right to suppress the use of a prior conviction that was obtained in violation of his right to counsel if its use by the State is to impeach the defendant or if its use will: (1) Increase the degree of crime of which the defendant would be guilty; or (2) Result in a sentence of imprisonment that otherwise would not be imposed; or (3) Result in a lengthened sentence of imprisonment. (c) When a defendant has moved to suppress use of a prior conviction under the terms of subsection (a), he has the burden of proving by the preponderance of the évidence that the conviction was obtained in violation of his right to counsel. To prevail, he must prove that at the time of the conviction [1] he was indigent, [2] had no counsel, and [3] had not waived his right to counsel. If the defendant proves that a prior conviction was obtained in violation of his right to counsel, the judge must suppress use of the conviction at trial or in any other proceeding if its use will contravene the provisions of subsection (a).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “2. That the defendant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was indigent within the meaning of the General Statutes of North Carolina.”
    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.