64 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1908–2026 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mainesgreen2 sentences2019Defendant's position is unpersuasive because the extent and strength of her ownership interest in the property is inconsequential in evaluating the existence of the determinative factors undergirding the doctrine of recent possession in **606 the face of defendant's motion to dismiss. " '[E]xclusive' possession" may include "joint possession of co-conspirators or persons acting in concert in which case the possession of one criminal accomplice would be the possession of all." Maines , 301 N.C. at 675 , 273 S.E.2d at 294 . 2019Defendant's position is unpersuasive because the extent and strength of her ownership interest in the property is inconsequential in evaluating the existence of the determinative factors undergirding the doctrine of recent possession in **606 the face of defendant's motion to dismiss. " '[E]xclusive' possession" may include "joint possession of co-conspirators or persons acting in concert in which case the possession of one criminal accomplice would be the possession of all." Maines , 301 N.C. at 675 , 273 S.E.2d at 294 . | 14 | 20 |
State v. McQueengreen2 sentences2025Under the doctrine of recent possession, a presumption arises that “a person in possession of recently stolen property is guilty of its wrongful taking . . . .” Id. (citations omitted). 2025For the doctrine of recent possession to apply, the State must show: “(1) the property was stolen, (2) defendant had possession of the property, subject to his control and disposition to the exclusion of others, and (3) the possession was sufficiently recent after the property was stolen, as mere possession of stolen property is insufficient to raise a presumption of guilt.” McQueen, 165 N.C. | 4 | 8 |
State v. Hamletgreen2 sentences2026See Wilson, 313 N.C. at 536–37 (applying the recent possession doctrine where the stolen object was a personal watch); but see Hamlet, 316 N.C. at 45–46 (normally and frequently traded articles and a time period of “approximately thirty days” precluded application of the doctrine of recent possession). 2026See Wilson, 313 N.C. at 536–37 (applying the recent possession doctrine where the stolen object was a personal watch); but see Hamlet, 316 N.C. at 45–46 (normally and frequently traded articles and a time period of “approximately thirty days” precluded application of the doctrine of recent possession). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Pickardgreen2 sentences2017However, we find no valid reason why the rule does not apply to property taken in a robbery with firearms in the same manner as property taken by breaking and entering." (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Pickard , 143 N.C.App. 485 , 487, 547 S.E.2d 102 , 104 (2001) ("The doctrine of recent possession allows the jury to infer that the possessor of certain stolen property is guilty of larceny."); State v. Brown , 221 N.C.App. 383 , 388, 732 S.E.2d 584 , 588 (2012) ("The doctrine of recent possession is a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property 2017However, we find no valid reason why the rule does not apply to property taken in a robbery with firearms in the same manner as property taken by breaking and entering." (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Pickard , 143 N.C.App. 485 , 487, 547 S.E.2d 102 , 104 (2001) ("The doctrine of recent possession allows the jury to infer that the possessor of certain stolen property is guilty of larceny."); State v. Brown , 221 N.C.App. 383 , 388, 732 S.E.2d 584 , 588 (2012) ("The doctrine of recent possession is a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property | 3 | 4 |
State v. Joynergreen2 sentences2015Although the doctrine of recent possession "has been said to raise a 'presumption,' it is more accurately deemed to raise a permissible inference that the possessor is the thief." State v. Joyner, 301 N.C. 18 , 28, 269 S.E.2d 125 , 132 (1980). 2015Although the doctrine of recent possession "has been said to raise a 'presumption,' it is more accurately deemed to raise a permissible inference that the possessor is the thief." State v. Joyner, 301 N.C. 18 , 28, 269 S.E.2d 125 , 132 (1980). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1974In State v. Jackson, 274 N.C. 594, 597 , 164 S.E. 2d 369, 370 (1968), we find: “The inference arising from the possession of recently stolen property is described as ‘the recent possession doctrine.’ Possession may be recent, but the theft may have occurred long before. 1974In State v. Jackson, 274 N.C. 594, 597 , 164 S.E. 2d 369, 370 (1968), we find: “The inference arising from the possession of recently stolen property is described as ‘the recent possession doctrine.’ Possession may be recent, but the theft may have occurred long before. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Fairgreen2 sentences2017The trial court had instructed on the doctrine of recent possession based upon the evidence that defendant possessed the cuff links, but our Supreme Court found error and granted a new trial because "[t]he jury should have been instructed that in order for the doctrine of recent possession to apply they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the cuff links were stolen at the same time and place as the other property for which defendant stands indicted." Id. at 174 , 229 S.E.2d at 190 -91 . 2017The trial court had instructed on the doctrine of recent possession based upon the evidence that defendant possessed the cuff links, but our Supreme Court found error and granted a new trial because "[t]he jury should have been instructed that in order for the doctrine of recent possession to apply they must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the cuff links were stolen at the same time and place as the other property for which defendant stands indicted." Id. at 174 , 229 S.E.2d at 190 -91 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2015"Under the doctrine of recent possession, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption that the possessor stole the property." State v. Lee, 213 N.C.App. 392 , 395, 713 S.E.2d 174 , 177 (2011). 2015"Under the doctrine of recent possession, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption that the possessor stole the property." State v. Lee, 213 N.C.App. 392 , 395, 713 S.E.2d 174 , 177 (2011). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Bellgreen2 sentences2005The doctrine of recent possession is "a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of the possessor's guilt of the larceny of such property." State v. Maines, 301 N.C. 669, 673 , 273 S.E.2d 289, 293 (citing State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25 , 153 S.E.2d 741 (1967); State v. Allison, 265 N.C. 512 , 144 S.E.2d 578 (1965)). 2005The doctrine of recent possession is "a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of the possessor's guilt of the larceny of such property." State v. Maines, 301 N.C. 669, 673 , 273 S.E.2d 289, 293 (citing State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25 , 153 S.E.2d 741 (1967); State v. Allison, 265 N.C. 512 , 144 S.E.2d 578 (1965)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences1981In that case, we recited the law of the doctrine of recent possession: [The] doctrine is simply a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of the possessor’s guilt of the larceny of such property. *622 [T]he presumption spawned by possession of recently stolen property arises when, and only when, the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the property der scribed in the indictment was stolen; (2) the stolen goods were found in defendant’s custody and subject to his control and disposition to the exclusion of others though 1981In that case, we recited the law of the doctrine of recent possession: [The] doctrine is simply a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of the possessor’s guilt of the larceny of such property. *622 [T]he presumption spawned by possession of recently stolen property arises when, and only when, the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the property der scribed in the indictment was stolen; (2) the stolen goods were found in defendant’s custody and subject to his control and disposition to the exclusion of others though | 1 | 3 |
State v. Allisongreen2 sentences2005The doctrine of recent possession is "a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of the possessor's guilt of the larceny of such property." State v. Maines, 301 N.C. 669, 673 , 273 S.E.2d 289, 293 (citing State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25 , 153 S.E.2d 741 (1967); State v. Allison, 265 N.C. 512 , 144 S.E.2d 578 (1965)). 2005The doctrine of recent possession is "a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of the possessor's guilt of the larceny of such property." State v. Maines, 301 N.C. 669, 673 , 273 S.E.2d 289, 293 (citing State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25 , 153 S.E.2d 741 (1967); State v. Allison, 265 N.C. 512 , 144 S.E.2d 578 (1965)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2026See Wilson, 313 N.C. at 536–37 (applying the recent possession doctrine where the stolen object was a personal watch); but see Hamlet, 316 N.C. at 45–46 (normally and frequently traded articles and a time period of “approximately thirty days” precluded application of the doctrine of recent possession). 2026See Wilson, 313 N.C. at 536–37 (applying the recent possession doctrine where the stolen object was a personal watch); but see Hamlet, 316 N.C. at 45–46 (normally and frequently traded articles and a time period of “approximately thirty days” precluded application of the doctrine of recent possession). | 1 | 2 |
State v. . Bakergreen2 sentences1969In State v. Holbrook, 223 N.C. 622 , 27 S.E. 2d 725 , Stacy, C.J., in a thorough discussion of the doctrine of recent possession, makes it clear that the doctrine does not place upon the defendant the burden to “raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt that he stole the property, or the burden of establishing a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” The doctrine “is to be considered by the jury merely as an evidential fact, along with the other evidence in the case, in determining whether the State has carried the burden of satisfying the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s 1969In State v. Holbrook, 223 N.C. 622 , 27 S.E. 2d 725 , Stacy, C.J., in a thorough discussion of the doctrine of recent possession, makes it clear that the doctrine does not place upon the defendant the burden to “raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt that he stole the property, or the burden of establishing a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” The doctrine “is to be considered by the jury merely as an evidential fact, along with the other evidence in the case, in determining whether the State has carried the burden of satisfying the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s | 1 | 2 |
State v. McDanielgreen1 sentence2026The recent possession doctrine requires “exclusive possession” which includes “joint possession of co-conspirators or persons acting in concert in which case the possession of one criminal accomplice would be the possession of all.” Id. at 606 (citation omitted). “[U]nder the doctrine of acting in concert, when two or more persons act together in pursuance of a common plan or purpose, each is guilty of any crime committed by any other in pursuance of the common plan or purpose.” State v. Facyson, 367 N.C. 454 , 459–60 (2014) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen1 sentence2026The evidence need only show the defendant “is acting together with another who does the acts necessary to constitute the crime pursuant to a common plan or purpose to commit the crime.” State v. King, 343 N.C. 29, 36 (1996) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State Employees Ass'n of North Carolina, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of State Treasurergreen2 sentences2023Dep’t of State Treasurer creates a possession requirement for documents to be considered public records. 364 N.C. 205, 214 , 695 S.E.2d 91, 97 (2010). 2023Dep’t of State Treasurer creates a possession requirement for documents to be considered public records. 364 N.C. 205, 214 , 695 S.E.2d 91, 97 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2019See State v. Lee , 370 N.C. 671 , 676, 811 S.E.2d 563 , 567 (2018) (citation omitted). 2019See State v. Lee , 370 N.C. 671 , 676, 811 S.E.2d 563 , 567 (2018) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hargettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Williamsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Friendgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Raynesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Haglergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Matiasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Barnesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hardygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cartergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Solomongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hamletgreen2 sentences2026See Wilson, 313 N.C. at 536–37 (applying the recent possession doctrine where the stolen object was a personal watch); but see Hamlet, 316 N.C. at 45–46 (normally and frequently traded articles and a time period of “approximately thirty days” precluded application of the doctrine of recent possession). 2026See Wilson, 313 N.C. at 536–37 (applying the recent possession doctrine where the stolen object was a personal watch); but see Hamlet, 316 N.C. at 45–46 (normally and frequently traded articles and a time period of “approximately thirty days” precluded application of the doctrine of recent possession). | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. . Holbrook
green
2 sentences1969In State v. Holbrook, 223 N.C. 622 , 27 S.E. 2d 725 , Stacy, C.J., in a thorough discussion of the doctrine of recent possession, makes it clear that the doctrine does not place upon the defendant the burden to “raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt that he stole the property, or the burden of establishing a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” The doctrine “is to be considered by the jury merely as an evidential fact, along with the other evidence in the case, in determining whether the State has carried the burden of satisfying the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s 1969In State v. Holbrook, 223 N.C. 622 , 27 S.E. 2d 725 , Stacy, C.J., in a thorough discussion of the doctrine of recent possession, makes it clear that the doctrine does not place upon the defendant the burden to “raise in the minds of the jury a reasonable doubt that he stole the property, or the burden of establishing a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.” The doctrine “is to be considered by the jury merely as an evidential fact, along with the other evidence in the case, in determining whether the State has carried the burden of satisfying the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s | 4 | 1953–1985 |
State v. Osborne
green
2 sentences2014The possession “‘required to support an inference or presumption of guilt need not be a sole possession but may be joint.’” State v. Osborne, 149 N.C. 2004The doctrine of recent possession “ ‘allows the jury to infer that the possessor of certain stolen property is guilty of larceny.’ ” State v. Osbourne, 149 N.C. | 3 | 2004–2014 |
Daras v. United States
green
2 sentences1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 N.C. 564, 568 , 189 S.E. 2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [Emphasis added.] The State’s evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goods were stolen; (2) the goods were 1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 *429 N.C. 564, 568, 189 S.E.2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 , 93 S.Ct. 547 , 34 L.Ed.2d 498 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [emphasis added] The State's evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goo | 2 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 N.C. 564, 568 , 189 S.E. 2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [Emphasis added.] The State’s evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goods were stolen; (2) the goods were 1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 N.C. 564, 568 , 189 S.E. 2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [Emphasis added.] The State’s evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goods were stolen; (2) the goods were | 2 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Eppley
green
2 sentences1981In that case, we recited the law of the doctrine of recent possession: [The] doctrine is simply a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of the possessor’s guilt of the larceny of such property. *622 [T]he presumption spawned by possession of recently stolen property arises when, and only when, the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the property der scribed in the indictment was stolen; (2) the stolen goods were found in defendant’s custody and subject to his control and disposition to the exclusion of others though 1981In that case, we recited the law of the doctrine of recent possession: [The] doctrine is simply a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property raises a presumption of the possessor’s guilt of the larceny of such property. *622 [T]he presumption spawned by possession of recently stolen property arises when, and only when, the State shows beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the property der scribed in the indictment was stolen; (2) the stolen goods were found in defendant’s custody and subject to his control and disposition to the exclusion of others though | 2 | 1980–1981 |
Pharis v. Bayless
neutral
2 sentences1908It was just as effective, as notice of the extent of the defendant's possession and claim, as if the objectionable recitals had been omitted." The same view is held in Pugh v. Youngblood , 69 Ala. 296 ; Edgerton v. Bird , 6 Wis. 527 ; Douglas v. Tollock , 34 Iowa 262 ; Pharis v. Bayless , 122 Mo., 116 (1 Cyc., 1087); 26 Am. 1908It was just as effective, as notice of the extent of the defendant’s possession and claim, as if the objectionable recitals had been omitted.” The same view is held in Pugh v. Youngblood, 69 Ala., 296 ; Edgerton v. Bird, 6 Wis., 521 ; Douglas v. Tolloch, 34 Iowa, 262 ; Pharis v. Bayless, 122 Mo., 116 (1 Cyc., 1081) ; 26 Am. | 2 | 1908–1908 |
Pugh v. Youngblood
green
2 sentences1908It was just as effective, as notice of the extent of the defendant's possession and claim, as if the objectionable recitals had been omitted." The same view is held in Pugh v. Youngblood , 69 Ala. 296 ; Edgerton v. Bird , 6 Wis. 527 ; Douglas v. Tollock , 34 Iowa 262 ; Pharis v. Bayless , 122 Mo., 116 (1 Cyc., 1087); 26 Am. 1908It was just as effective, as notice of the extent of the defendant’s possession and claim, as if the objectionable recitals had been omitted.” The same view is held in Pugh v. Youngblood, 69 Ala., 296 ; Edgerton v. Bird, 6 Wis., 521 ; Douglas v. Tolloch, 34 Iowa, 262 ; Pharis v. Bayless, 122 Mo., 116 (1 Cyc., 1081) ; 26 Am. | 2 | 1908–1908 |
Douglass v. Tullock
neutral
2 sentences1908It was just as effective, as notice of the extent of the defendant's possession and claim, as if the objectionable recitals had been omitted." The same view is held in Pugh v. Youngblood , 69 Ala. 296 ; Edgerton v. Bird , 6 Wis. 527 ; Douglas v. Tollock , 34 Iowa 262 ; Pharis v. Bayless , 122 Mo., 116 (1 Cyc., 1087); 26 Am. 1908It was just as effective, as notice of the extent of the defendant’s possession and claim, as if the objectionable recitals had been omitted.” The same view is held in Pugh v. Youngblood, 69 Ala., 296 ; Edgerton v. Bird, 6 Wis., 521 ; Douglas v. Tolloch, 34 Iowa, 262 ; Pharis v. Bayless, 122 Mo., 116 (1 Cyc., 1081) ; 26 Am. | 2 | 1908–1908 |
State v. Facyson
green
1 sentence2026The recent possession doctrine requires “exclusive possession” which includes “joint possession of co-conspirators or persons acting in concert in which case the possession of one criminal accomplice would be the possession of all.” Id. at 606 (citation omitted). “[U]nder the doctrine of acting in concert, when two or more persons act together in pursuance of a common plan or purpose, each is guilty of any crime committed by any other in pursuance of the common plan or purpose.” State v. Facyson, 367 N.C. 454 , 459–60 (2014) (cleaned up). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Foster
green
2 sentences2018On appeal, the defendant did not argue the jury was improperly instructed on the doctrine of recent possession; he contended the trial court erroneously refused to include the instruction that "the [stolen] goods must be found in [the] defendant's possession 'to the exclusion of others.' " 149 N.C. 2018On appeal, the defendant did not argue the jury was improperly instructed on the doctrine of recent possession; he contended the trial court erroneously refused to include the instruction that “the [stolen] goods must be found in [the] defendant’s possession ‘to the exclusion of others.’” 149 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lytton
green
2 sentences2018This Court held evidence was sufficient to raise the recent possession doctrine where another man, in addition to the charged defendant, was a party to the crime and the evidence did not suggest that anyone other than the defendant and this other man "possessed, controlled, or had anything to do with" the stolen guns; instead, it tended "to show that only they had and controlled the stolen guns." Id. at 759 , 365 S.E.2d at 7 . 2018This Court held evidence was sufficient to raise the recent possession doctrine where another man, in addition to the charged defendant, was a party to the crime and the evidence did not suggest that anyone other than the defendant and this other man "possessed, controlled, or had anything to do with" the stolen guns; instead, it tended "to show that only they had and controlled the stolen guns." Id. at 759 , 365 S.E.2d at 7 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Milligan green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2017However, we find no valid reason why the rule does not apply to property taken in a robbery with firearms in the same manner as property taken by breaking and entering." (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Pickard , 143 N.C.App. 485 , 487, 547 S.E.2d 102 , 104 (2001) ("The doctrine of recent possession allows the jury to infer that the possessor of certain stolen property is guilty of larceny."); State v. Brown , 221 N.C.App. 383 , 388, 732 S.E.2d 584 , 588 (2012) ("The doctrine of recent possession is a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property 2017However, we find no valid reason why the rule does not apply to property taken in a robbery with firearms in the same manner as property taken by breaking and entering." (quotation marks omitted)); State v. Pickard , 143 N.C.App. 485 , 487, 547 S.E.2d 102 , 104 (2001) ("The doctrine of recent possession allows the jury to infer that the possessor of certain stolen property is guilty of larceny."); State v. Brown , 221 N.C.App. 383 , 388, 732 S.E.2d 584 , 588 (2012) ("The doctrine of recent possession is a rule of law that, upon an indictment for larceny, possession of recently stolen property | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Mohamed
green
1 sentence2017State v. Mohamed , 205 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Neill green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Earley green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Osorio green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Robinson neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. McCoy green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Washington green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Heath v. Turner green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Day v. Godwin green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Walker green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Osborne neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Osborne neutral | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| O'Steen v. CSX Transportation, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Buchbinder v. Commissioner green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Berryhill v. United States green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Parker green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. . Jones green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Perry green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Turner neutral | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. . Epps green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| State v. . English green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| State v. Glenn neutral | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Jones v. United States red | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State v. . Graves neutral | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State v. Hayes neutral | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| State v. . McFalls green | 1 | 1954–1954 |
| State v. . Weinstein green | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.