State v. Corbett (1983)

“This statute [15A-926(a)], which became effective in 1975, differs from its predecessor, in part by disallowing joinder on the basis that the acts were of the same class of crime or offense when there is no transactional connection among the offenses.” State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 387 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 143 (1983) (citations omitted).

State v. Cummings, 326 N.C. 298, 308-11 , 389 S.E.2d 66, 72-73 (1990) (holding that, although the offenses were not joined for trial, the trial court properly admitted evidence of one murder at the trial of the other under Rule 404(b)); State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 388-89 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983) (determining that joinder of the offenses, although improper, was not prejudicial in part because “[e]vidence of each of these offenses would have been admissible in the sepa…

Ed. 2d 182 (1990); State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 390, 395 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 145, 147 (1983) (prospective juror who states opinion on disposition of case can serve if it is established that he can “lay aside” his opinion and render verdict on the evidence).

While the admissibility of evidence is not dispositive of the absence of prejudice, admissibility “may be considered in determining whether the consolidation [of charges for purposes of joinder] was unjust and prejudicial to the defendant.” State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 389 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983).

State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 387 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 143 (1983).

App. 80, 83 , 373 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1988) (quoting State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 389 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983)).

In State v. Corbett, we considered a prospective juror’s remark that he had been following the case in the paper and had formed an opinion that the defendant was guilty. 309 N.C. 382, 385 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 142 (1983).

See, e.g., Effler, 309 N.C. at 752 , 309 S.E.2d at 209 ; State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 388 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983); State v. Greene, 294 N.C. 418, 422-23 , 241 S.E.2d 662, 665 (1978).

State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 388-89 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983).

N.C.G.S. § 15A-1212 contains no language requiring mandatory dismissal of jurors and “merely lists the various grounds for making challenges to jurors.” State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 389 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 145 (1983).

State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 387 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 143 (1983).

State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 402 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 151 (1983); State v. Simpson, 302 N.C. 613, 618 , 276 S.E.2d 361, 364 (1981).

Such an abuse of discretion may occur when the offenses are “so separate in time and place and so distinct in circumstances as to render consolidation unjust and prejudicial to the defendant.” State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 389 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983).

Typically, “a juror who has formed an opinion as to defendant’s guilt or innocence is not impartial and ought not serve.” State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 386 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 143 (1983).

State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 396 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 148 (1983); see also State v. Madric, 328 *55 N.C. at 230, 400 S.E.2d at 35-36 (no abuse of discretion where each of the five jurors exposed to pretrial publicity gave such unequivocal answers).

App. 80, 83 , 373 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1988) (quoting State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 389 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983)).

State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 389 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983) (citation omitted).

State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382 , *94 387, 307 S.E.2d 139, 143-44 (1983) (quoting State v. Silva, 304 N.C. at 126 , 282 S.E.2d at 452 ).

App. 695 , 329 S.E. 2d 705 (1985), the test we apply on review is “whether the offenses are so separate in time and place and so distinct in circumstances as to render consolidation unjust and prejudicial to the defendant.” State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 389 , 307 S.E. 2d 139, 144 (1983).

State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 401-02 , 307 S.E. 2d 139, 151 (1983).

Accord State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382 , 307 S.E.2d 139 (1983).

See Corbett, 309 N.C. 382 , 307 S.E. 2d 139 .

See State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 388 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 144 (1983) ("Although, generally, evidence of crimes other than the one charged is inadmissible to show the character of the accused or his disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the one charged, such evidence is admissible if it is relevant to show the identity of the perpetrator of the crime charged.").

See State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 402-03 , 307 S.E.2d 139, 151-52 (1983) (no shift of burden of proof to defendant when court instructed, “[i]f you find the facts to be as the defendant’s evidence tends to show them, then you are to acquit the defendant,” and charge as a whole conveyed the proper-burden of proof).

See also, State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382 , 307 S.E.2d 139 (1983).

See State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382, 403 , 307 S.E. 2d 139, 152 (1983), (where no indication trial court considered evidence of crimes for which defendant acquitted, resen-tencing denied); see also State v. Snowden, 26 N.C.

See State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382 , 307 S.E. 2d 139 (1983). *613 Our review of the trial transcript indicates that this defendant received the benefit of able and aggressive representation by the public defender before an able and thorough trial judge.

See State v. Greene, 294 N.C. 418 , 241 S.E. 2d 662 ; see also State v. Corbett, 309 N.C. 382 , 307 S.E. 2d 139 (otherwise admissible to prove identity).