State v. Effler (1983)
green
· 140 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 23 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198420052026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State v. Williams (2002)
Ed. 2d 1077 (1996); State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 752 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 209 (1983); State v. Bracey, 303 N.C. 112, 118 , 277 S.E.2d 390, 394 (1981); State v. Clark, 301 N.C. 176, 181 , 270 S.E.2d 425, 428 (1980).
green
State v. Frazier (1995)
Furthermore, our Supreme Court has stated that a defendant is not prejudiced when the State has "placed [the] defendant on notice that the victim [is] a child and therefore the information provided [relating to dates and times] should not be relied upon for any degree of certainty." State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 750 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 207-08 (1983).
green
State v. Everett (1990)
State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 748 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 207 (1983).
green
State v. Lanford (2013)
State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 749 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 207 (1983) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
green
State v. Grange (2010)
Our Supreme Court has stated that a defendant is not prejudiced when the evidence at trial does not precisely match the allegations in the Bill of Particulars so long as the State "placed defendant on notice that the victim was a child and therefore the information provided should not be relied upon for any degree of certainty." State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 750 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 207-08 (1983); State v. Frazier, 121 N.C.
green
State v. Mueller (2007)
Stat. § 15-144.2 (2005); State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 503-08 , 528 S.E.2d 326, 340-43 (2000); State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 745-47 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 205-06 (1983).
green
State v. Wiggins (2003)
App. 71, 81 , 564 S.E.2d 603, 609 (2002) (quoting State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 749 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 207 (1983)), appeal dismissed and disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 681 , 577 S.E.2d 895 (2003).
green
State v. Quarg (1992)
In State v. Hicks, 319 N.C. 84 , 352 S.E.2d 424 (1987), our Supreme Court stated: This Court has repeatedly noted that ‘a child’s uncertainty as to the time or particular day the offense charged was committed’ shall not be grounds for nonsuit ‘where there is sufficient evidence that the defendant committed each essential act of the offense.’ (Citations omitted.) Hicks, 319 N.C. at 91 , 352 S.E.2d at 428 , citing State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 749 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 207 (1983)…
green
State v. Norris (1990)
State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 749 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 207 (1983).
green
State v. Joyce (1990)
N.C.G.S. 15-155 explicitly provides that no judgment shall be reversed or stayed because an indictment omits stating “the time at which the offense was committed in any case where time is not of the essence of the offense, nor [because it states] the time imperfectly. . . .” This Court has repeatedly noted that “a child’s uncertainty as to the time or particular day the offense charged was committed” shall not be grounds for nonsuit “where there is sufficient evidence that t…
green
State v. Chandler (1989)
In Street , the Court of Appeals relied on the test for severance as stated in State v. Johnson, 280 N.C. 700, 704 , 187 S.E. 2d 98, 101 (1972), which is “whether the offenses are so separate in time or place and so distinct in circumstances as to render a consolidation unjust and prejudicial to defendant.” To the same effect, see State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 752 , 309 S.E. 2d 203, 209 (1983) (joinder of two cases of sex crimes against different children on 15 May and 8 Ju…
green
State v. Morrison (1987)
State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 748 , 309 S.E. 2d 203, 207 (1983).
green
State v. Frazier (1987)
See State v. DeLeonardo, 315 N.C. 762, 769-71 , 340 S.E. 2d 350, 355-57 (1986); State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 747-48 , 309 S.E. 2d 203, 206-07 (1983); State v. Williams, 303 N.C. at 513 , 279 S.E. 2d at 596 .
green
State v. Hicks (1987)
N.C.G.S. 15-155 explicitly provides that no judgment shall be reversed or stayed because an indictment omits stating “the time at which the offense was committed in any case where time is not of the essence of the offense, nor [because it states] the time imperfectly . . . .” This Court has repeatedly noted that “a child’s uncertainty as to the time or particular day the offense charged was committed” shall not be grounds for nonsuit “where there is sufficient evidence that …
green
State v. Gordon (1986)
State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 748 , 309 S.E. 2d 203, 207 (1983).
green
State v. Arnold (1985)
State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 748 , 309 S.E. 2d 203, 207 (1983).
green
State v. Kornegay (1985)
State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 751-52 , 309 S.E. 2d 203, 209 (1983).
green
State v. Sills (1984)
See State v. Effler, 309 N.C. at 750 , 309 S.E. 2d at 207-08 .
green
State v. Hensley (1995)
See State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 750 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 208 (1983).
green
State v. Burton (1994)
See State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742, 750 , 309 S.E.2d 203, 208 (1983).
green
State v. McGuire (1985)
See State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742 , 309 S.E. 2d 203 (1983); State v. Johnson, 280 N.C. 700 , 187 S.E. 2d 98 (1972).
green
State v. Whitfield (1984)
Defendant concedes that this issue has been resolved against him in State v. Roberts, 310 N.C. 428 , 312 S.E. 2d 477 ; see State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742 , 309 S.E. 2d 203 .
green
State v. Roberts (1984)
See G.S. 15-144.1 (b) and (c) to indict for these offenses.] In State v. Effler, 309 N.C. 742 , --- S.E. 2d --- (1983), this Court addressed the same arguments which are being made in the instant case, while discussing whether a short form indictment for a sexual offense, drafted pursuant to G.S. § 15-144.2, satisfied a defendant’s constitutional right to indictment by a grand jury even though the indictment did not specify all of the elements of the crime charged.