green
Positive treatment
6.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brichikov
See State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657, 691 , 518 S.E.2d 486, 507 (1999) (“We note that [the] defendant waived this [improper jury instructions] argument by failing to properly object during the charge conference.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Brichikov
See State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657, 691 , 518 S.E.2d 486, 507 (1999) (“We note that [the] defendant waived this [improper jury instructions] argument by failing to properly object during the charge conference.”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Fair
See State v. Morganherring, 350 N.C. 701, 726 , 517 S.E.2d 622, 637 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Cummings
See State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657, 685 , 518 S.E.2d 486, 503 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Locklear
App. P. 10(a)(2) (2018); see also State v. McNeil , 350 N.C. 657 , 691, 518 S.E.2d 486 , 507 (1999), cert. denied , 529 U.S. 1024 , 120 S.Ct. 1432 , 146 L.Ed.2d 321 (2000).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nabors
See, e.g., State v. Morganherring, 350 N.C. 701, 733-34 , 517 S.E.2d 622, 641 (1999) (noting that the defendant’s own evidence was sufficient to support an instruction on voluntary intoxication), cer t. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Poindexter
“Our inquiry therefore, is to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by evidence, whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law, and whether the conclusions of law support the order entered by the trial court.” Stevens , 305 [N.C.] at 720, 291 S.E.2d at 591 ; see also [] State v. Morganherring, 350 N.C. 701, 714 , 517 S.E.2d 622, 630 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Thompson
Ed. 2d 860 (1995); see also State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657, 689 , 518 S.E.2d 486, 505 (1999) (“This Court has repeatedly held it is not improper to argue that defendant, as judge, jury, and executioner, single-handedly decided the victim’s fate”), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Thompson
Ed. 2d 860 (1995); see also State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657 , 689, 518 S.E.2d 486 , 505 (1999) ("This Court has repeatedly held it is not improper to argue that defendant, as judge, jury, and executioner, single-handedly decided the victim's fate"), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morgan
See also State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657 , 687, 518 S.E.2d 486 , 504 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Morgan
See also State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657, 687 , 518 S.E.2d 486, 504 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Matthews
“Our inquiry therefore, is to determine whether the findings of fact are supported by evidence, whether the findings of fact support the conclusions of law, and whether the *106 conclusions of law support the order entered by the trial court.” Stevens , 305 at 720, 291 S.E.2d at 591 ; see also, State v. Morganherring, 350 N.C. 701, 714 , 517 S.E.2d 622, 630 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Washington
Accordingly, [t]he standard of review when a defendant fails to object at trial is whether the argument complained of was so grossly improper that the trial court erred in failing to intervene ex mero motu. "`[T]he impropriety of the argument must be gross indeed in order for this Court to hold that a trial judge abused his discretion in not recognizing and correcting ex mero motu an argument which defense counsel apparently did not believe was prejudicial when he heard it.'" State v. Trull, 349 N.C. 428, 451 , 509 S.E.2d 178, 193 (1998) (citations omitted), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 835 , 120 S.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Washington
Ed. 2d 80 (1999); see also State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657, 684 , 518 S.E.2d 486, 503 (1999) (noting that the argument must “stray[] so far from the bounds of propriety as to impede defendant’s right to a fair trial” before a trial court will be required to intervene), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Smith
v.
Barrios
v.
Barrios
No. 99-7739.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 20, 2000.
Published
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.