Smith v. Barrios (2000)

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.

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.

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).

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

See State v. Morganherring, 350 N.C. 701, 726 , 517 S.E.2d 622, 637 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.

See State v. McNeil, 350 N.C. 657, 685 , 518 S.E.2d 486, 503 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1024 , 146 L.

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.'…

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.