green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
14.7 score
G Cite
cited 5× by 5 distinct cases, last quoted 2011 ·
…he defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing. the evidence elicited was not disputed and there has been no showing that it would have been different had the defendant been present
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Revis v. State
he defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing. the evidence elicited was not disputed and there has been no showing that it would have been different had the defendant been present
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Hall v. State
he defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing. the evidence elicited was not disputed and there has been no showing that it would have been different had the defendant been present
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Borden v. State
he defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing. the evidence elicited was not disputed and there has been no showing that it would have been different had the defendant been present
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ponder v. State
he defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing. the evidence elicited was not disputed and there has been no showing that it would have been different had the defendant been present
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Harris v. State
he defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing. the evidence elicited was not disputed and there has been no showing that it would have been different had the defendant been present
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gamble v. State
See also State v. Piland, 58 N.C.App. 95 , 293 S.E.2d 278 (1982), appeal dismissed, 306 N.C. 562 , 294 S.E.2d 374 (1982) (`[t]he [capital] defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hall v. State
See also State v. Piland, 58 N.C.App. 95 , 293 S.E.2d 278 (1982), appeal dismissed, 306 N.C. 562 , 294 S.E.2d 374 (1982) (`[t]he [capital] defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Melson v. State
See also State v. Piland, 58 N.C.App. 95 , 293 S.E.2d 278 (1982), appeal dismissed, 306 N.C. 562 , 294 S.E.2d 374 (1982) (`[t]he capital defendant in this case has not demonstrated any prejudice to him by his absence from a part of the hearing.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
MAVROGIANIS
v.
MAVROGIANIS
No. 275P82.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Aug 3, 1982.
Published
Citer courts: Court of Criminal Appeals of A… (5)
Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 3 August 1982.