green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.5 score
“creech iii”
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Williams
See State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 79 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 108 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Crain v. State
See State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904, 924-25 (Tenn.1998) (“In this case, the skull had been thoroughly cleansed and was no more prejudicial or gruesome than a model diagram would have been.”), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 119 S.Ct. 2025 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1999); Hilbish v. State, 891 P.2d 841, 849 (Alaska Ct.App.1995) (The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted into evidence the victim’s skull, “which had been cleaned of all tissue and was contained in a sealed and odorless plastic bag” and was utilized by the State to “assist the jury in understanding the precise…
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Braxton
See State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 102-03 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 122 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Lawrence
See State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 79 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 108 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Greene
(2×)
See State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62 , 505 S.E.2d 97 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 119 S.Ct. 2025 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rodriguez
“We have long held that evidence of bias is logically relevant to a witness’ credibility . . . .” Id. at 494, 724 S.E.2d 497 ; see also State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 83 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 110 (1998) (concluding that “the State appropriately attempted to illustrate a potential source of witness bias, as revealed by the expert witness’s own curriculum vitae”), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 119 S. Ct. 2025 , 143 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rodriguez
(2×)
"We have long held that evidence of bias is logically relevant to a witness' credibility ...." Id . at 494, 724 S.E.2d at 497 ; see also State v. Atkins , 349 N.C. 62 , 83, 505 S.E.2d 97 , 110 (1998) (concluding that "the State appropriately attempted to illustrate a potential source of witness bias, as revealed by the expert witness's own curriculum vitae "), cert. denied , 526 U.S. 1147 , 119 S.Ct. 2025 , 143 L.Ed. 2d 1036 (1999).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Mead
(2×)
Ed. 2d 641 (2001); see also State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 81 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 109-10 (1998) (refusing to apply the plain error doctrine to a trial court’s failure to give an instruction during jury voir dire that was not requested), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Anderson
See, e.g., State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62 , 505 S.E.2d 97 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cummings
A defendant’s challenge to the jury must satisfy N.C.G.S. § 15A-1211, which provides that a challenge: (1) “[m]ay be made only on the ground that the jurors were not selected or drawn according to law,” (2) “[m]ust be in writing,” (3) “[m]ust specify the facts constituting the ground of challenge,” and (4) “[m]ust be made and decided before any juror is examined.” N.C.G.S. § 15A-1211(c) (1999); see also State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 102-03 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 122 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Meyer
Based on defendant’s failure to follow the procedures for jury panel challenges and “his failure to alert the trial court to the challenged improprieties,” Braxton, 352 N.C. at 177 , 531 S.E.2d at 439 ; see also State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 103 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 122 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cummings
However, “we have previously decided that plain error analysis applies only to instructions to the jury and evidentiary matters.” State v. Greene, 351 N.C. 562, 566 , 528 S.E.2d 575, 578 (2000); see also State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 81 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 109 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Holder
I, § 23; see also State v. Atkins, 349 N.C. 62, 101 , 505 S.E.2d 97, 121 (1998), cert. denied, 562 U.S. 1147 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1999), and our Supreme Court has long held that a defendant in a capital case may not waive his right to be present.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lewis
See, e.g., State v. Pike, 978 S.W.2d 904, 914 (Tenn.1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1147 , 119 S.Ct. 2025 , 143 L.Ed.2d 1036 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Creech
v.
Idaho
v.
Idaho
No. 98-8278.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1999.
Published
Citer courts: Idaho Supreme Court (2)
Sup. Ct. Idaho. Certiorari denied.