87 N.C. App. 24 - State v. MacK’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably State v. Canady (1991), 159 N.C. App. 546 - State v. Riley (2003)
32 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 State v. Powell · State v. Ahearn · State v. Williams · State v. Mason · State v. Rowland
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he sentencing court may never enhance defendant’s presumptive sentence merely because defendant has charges for other crimes pending against him. Nevertheless, we uphold the trial court’s sentencing in the instant case since the record does not affirmatively disclose the court enhanced defendant’s sentence based on any consideration of his pending charges. Instead, the trial court’s statements merely indicate it was aware of defendant’s pending charges, not that it found or even considered them a factor aggravating defendant’s sentence. Therefore, the sentencing court’s statements regarding defendant’s other pending charges do not themselves necessitate resentencing. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Absent objection at the sentencing hearing or assertion of the “plain error” rule, 3 ... [the] defendant has waived objection to the competency of the prosecutor’s statements as an acceptable method of proof. . . . However, while [a] defendant may have waived challenging the competency of the assistant prosecutor’s statements, [the] defendant was not required to object at the sentencing hearing in order to assert the insufficiency of the remarks as a matter of law to prove his prior convictions by a preponderance of the evidence. . .. It is clear a prosecutor’s mere unsupported statement is not sufficient proof of defendant’s prior convictions[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(f) Proof of Prior Convictions. — A prior conviction shall be proved by any of the following methods: (1) Stipulation of the parties. (2) An original or copy of the court record of the prior conviction. (3) A copy of records maintained by the Division of Criminal Information, the Division of Motor Vehicles, or of the Administrative Office of the Courts. (4) Any other method found by the court to be reliable.”
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.