green
Positive treatment
Trending · 74 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 1×
14.6 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2011 ·
…summary judgment is not appropriate where matters of credibility and determining the weight of the evidence exist.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Distinguished
State v. Taylor
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
See Maske, 358 N.C. at 56 , 591 S.E.2d at 532 (stating that the instruction in Davis “is distinguishable from the one given here”); Jones, 357 N.C. at 421 , 584 S.E.2d at 759 (citing with approval the instruction in Davis and indicating it adequately described pecuniary gain).
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Perry v. Presbyterian Hospital
(2×)
summary judgment is not appropriate where matters of credibility and determining the weight of the evidence exist.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Garcell
It is well settled under this Court’s precedent that “ ‘[ujnless a defendant’s age has mitigating value as a matter of law, a juror need consider the defendant’s age as mitigating only if that juror finds by a preponderance of the evidence that his age has mitigating value.’ ” State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 59 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 533 (2004) (quoting Rouse, 339 N.C. at 105 , 451 S.E.2d at 569 (alteration in original)). *56 Contrary to defendant’s lengthy argument in his brief that Roper v. Simmons should alter our understanding of youth for purposes of the (f)(7) mitigator, defendan…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Murrell
(2×)
Defendant contends that the italicized portion of the above instruction relieved the State of its burden of proving that the murder was committed for the purpose of pecuniary gain and of thereby showing that “the taking was [not] a mere act of opportunism committed after a murder was perpetrated for another reason.” See State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 54 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 530 (2004).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Raines
Generally, “character evidence of a victim is usually irrelevant during the guilt-innocence portion of a capital trial, as is victim-impact evidence.” State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 50 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 528 (2004) (citing State v. Abraham, 338 N.C. 315, 352-53 , 451 S.E.2d 131, 151 (1994) and State v. Oliver, 309 N.C. 326, 360 , 307 S.E.2d 304, 326 (1983)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Graham
(2×)
Defendant, relying on State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 50 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 527-28 (2004), contends that evidence of the effect of the incident on Ms. Spence was victim impact evidence, and therefore irrelevant to determining his guilt or innocence.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Davis
State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 50 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 528 (2004).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Gladden
State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 50 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 528 (2004); State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 274 , 582 S.E.2d 593, 604-05 , cert. denied, 539 U.S. 985 , 156 L.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Dennison
(2×)
A non-constitutional error is deemed prejudicial "when there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises." State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 50 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 528 (2004) (quoting N.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
Peo v. Martinez
Pernell v. People, 2018 CO 13, ¶ 22 , 411 P.3d 669, 673 ; see State v. Maske, 591 S.E.2d 521, 528 (N.C. 2004) (reviewing the admission of victim impact evidence for nonconstitutional harmless error); Justice v. State, 775 P.2d 1002, 1011 (Wyo. 1989) (same); see also People v. Flockhart, 2013 CO 42, ¶ 20 , 304 P.3d 227, 233 (“Only those errors ‘that specifically and directly offend a defendant’s constitutional rights are “constitutional” in nature.’” (quoting Wend v. People, 235 P.3d 1089, 1097 (Colo. 2010))). ¶ 28 Under the nonconstitutional harmless error standard, “reversa…
discussed
Cited "see"
Piazza v. Kirkbride
(2×)
See State v. Maske , 358 N.C. 40 , 53, 591 S.E.2d 521 , 530 (2004) ; see also N.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Hembree
(2×)
See State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 50 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 528 (2004) (“[U]nless admissible under Rule 404(a)(2). . . . character evidence of a victim is usually irrelevant during the guilt-innocence portion of a capital trial, as is victim-impact evidence.” (citing N.C.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Goss
See State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 62 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 535 (2004) (Brady, J., concurring) (noting how such lapses of judgment by counsel in capital cases “are unacceptable given the gravity of the setting, *622 the dwindling resources available to our judiciary, and the expanding caseload of the judiciary” (citation omitted)).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gonzalez
See State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 50 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 528 (2004) (holding that when there was "ample evidence of defendant's guilt," the defendant was not prejudiced by the admission of irrelevant evidence).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Castaneda
See also State v. Maske, 358 N.C. 40, 57 , 591 S.E.2d 521, 532 (2004).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lynetta DRAUGHON, Personal Representative of the Estate of Max Draughon, Deceased
v.
HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and Barry Honeycutt, Jackie Samuels, Stephen Ausley, Jason Spell, Anthony Barbour, Perry Saenz, Don Wilson, Jr., Raymond McCall, and Brian Strickland, in their Individual and Official Capacities.
v.
HARNETT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION and Barry Honeycutt, Jackie Samuels, Stephen Ausley, Jason Spell, Anthony Barbour, Perry Saenz, Don Wilson, Jr., Raymond McCall, and Brian Strickland, in their Individual and Official Capacities.
358A03.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Feb 6, 2004.
Keith A. Bishop, PLLC, by Keith A. Bishop, Durham, for plaintiff-appellant.
Tharrington Smith, LLP, by Jonathan A. Blumberg and Lisa Lukasik, for all defendant-appellees; Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP, by Patricia L. Holland, for defendant-appellees Honeycutt, Ausley, and McCall; and Bailey & Dixon, LLP, by Gary Parsons and Warren Savage, Raleigh, for defendant-appellees Honeycutt, Ausley, McCall, Spell, and Wilson.
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED.