green
Positive treatment
8.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wright
“In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes ‘plain error,’ the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 378-79.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Melvin
“It is the rare case in which an improper instruction will justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made in the trial court.” Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 378 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 52 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. McLean
In determining whether the error rises to plain error, the appellate court examines the entire record and decides whether the “error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 379 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Maready
(2×)
"In deciding whether a defect in the jury instruction constitutes `plain error,' the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury's finding of guilt." Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 378-79 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Person
The North Carolina Supreme Court adopted the plain error rule in State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983), stating that the plain error rule . . . is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a " fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done," or "where [the error] is grave error which amounts to a denial of a fundamental right of the accused," or the error has "`resulted in a miscarriage of justice or i…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. McEachin
Consequently, the defendant must show the error “had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 379 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Anderson
“Indeed, even when the ‘plain error’ rule is applied, ‘[i]t is the rare case in which an improper instruction will justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made in the trial court.’ ” Id. at 660-61, 300 S.E.2d at 378 (quoting Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 52 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Anderson
"Indeed, even when the `plain error' rule is applied, `[i]t is the rare case in which an improper instruction will justify reversal of a criminal conviction when no objection has been made in the trial court.'" Id. at 660-61, 300 S.E.2d at 378 (quoting Henderson v. Kibbe, 431 U.S. 145, 154 , 97 S.Ct. 1730, 1736 , 52 L.Ed.2d 203, 212 (1977)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Lee
Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 378-79 . *483 A review of the evidence in the present case reveals that this is not the exceptional case where such a pervasive defect or plain error occurred which would have tainted all results and denied defendant a right to a fair trial.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ramey
We have stated that: [T]he plain error rule ... is always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said the claimed error is a fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done’ State v. Odom, 307 N.C. at 660 , 300 S.E. 2d at 378 , quoting with approval, United States v. McCaskill, 676 F. 2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed. 2d 513 *463 (1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Wise
In order to classify the error as “plain error,” “the appellate court must examine the entire record and determine if the instructional error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” Id., at 661, 300 S.E. 2d at 379 , citing United States v. Jackson, 569 F. 2d 1003 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 907 , 98 S.Ct. 3096 , 57 L.Ed. 2d 1137 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Stanley Friedman, Michael Lazar, Lester Shafran, and Marvin Kaplan, Defendants
See United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995 , 997 n. 3 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982); cf. United States v. Barash, 412 F.2d 26, 33 (2d Cir.) (failure to object to trial court’s omission of agreed-upon compromise instruction did not preserve claim), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 832 , 90 S.Ct. 86 , 24 L.Ed.2d 82 (1969).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jeffrey Grubczak
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Although our court never has been squarely presented with this precise question, dictum in United States v. Wardy, 777 F.2d 101, 106 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 1280 , 89 L.Ed.2d 587 (1986), suggests acceptance of the prevailing view that in a prosecution for aiding and abetting armed bank robbery, the government must establish not only that the defendant knew that a bank was to be robbed and became associated and participated in that crime, but also that the defendant " ‘knew that [the principal] was armed and intended to use the weapon, and intended to aid him in that …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. McNair
App. P. 10(b)(1), “when no objection or exception to evidence presented and admitted was made at trial.” State v. Gardner, 315 N.C. 444, 449 , 340 S.E.2d 701, 706 (1986); see also United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 74 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Samuel M. Chaimson
(2×)
See also United States v. Cavale, 688 F.2d 1098, 1112 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 380 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Hyman v. Aiken
See also, United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 999, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
James Dyral Briley v. Gary L. Bass, Warden
See also United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McCoy
v.
Bordenkircher
v.
Bordenkircher
No. 82-5136.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 15, 1982.
Published
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.