93 N.C. App. 1 - State v. Hewett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “" We do not imply that a defendant charged with offenses such as these is precluded, in all cases, from receiving an independent medical examination of the alleged victim. On appeal, both the State and defendant have focused on North Carolina cases in which criminal defendants have asked trial judges to compel witnesses to undergo psychiatric examinations. The law in this State is that a judge has no discretionary power to require an unwilling witness to submit to such an examination. [Citation.] In our view, a trial judge would have the discretionary power to permit a second physical examination of an alleged sexual-abuse victim if the defendant shows the court that the examination would be probative, that it is necessary to the defendant's preparation of his defense, and if the victim or the victim's guardian consents to the examination. When, in a case such as this one, four life sentences are in part contingent on a distance of four millimeters, a defendant should not be absolutely foreclosed from having his own expert examine the alleged victim. In this case, however, defendant failed to make a preliminary showing to the judge that the examinations would be probative and were necessary, and thus we overrule this assignment of error. " (Emphases added and emphasis omitted.) Hewett, 93 N.C.App. at 9 , 376 S.E.2d at 472 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 31 Va. App. 96 - Clark v. Commonwealth · 207 Ill. 2d 449 - People v. Lopez

2. “"[C]ourts are rightly solicitous when a human being's privacy faces invasion. At the same time, we recognize that this defendant has been convicted of some of our most serious non-capital offenses, and our concern for his due process rights is, likewise, very strong. [Citation.] We have carefully reviewed the record, and we do not find that defendant made a credible showing to the trial judge that the additional examinations he requested would have been probative. The last alleged incidence of abuse was 29 March; the new examinations would have taken place some six months later. Defendant made no showing that dilations, in September, of less than four millimeters would demonstrate that no penetration had occurred in February and March. He made no showing that normal measurements would not have been the result of vaginal constriction rather than non-abuse." (Emphases added.) Hewett, 93 N.C.App. at 8 , 376 S.E.2d at 471-72 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 207 Ill. 2d 449 - People v. Lopez

3. “any touching by the lips or tongue of one person of the male sex organ of another.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 110 N.C. App. 119 - State v. Smith