Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lyonsgreen2 sentences2019The particular act found to have been performed is immaterial to the unanimity inquiry "because the evil the legislature sought to prevent was the taking of any kind of sexual liberties with a child in order to arouse or gratify sexual desire." State v. Lyons , 330 N.C. 298 , 306, 412 S.E.2d 308 , 314 (1991). 2019The particular act found to have been performed is immaterial to the unanimity inquiry "because the evil the legislature sought to prevent was the taking of any kind of sexual liberties with a child in order to arouse or gratify sexual desire." State v. Lyons , 330 N.C. 298 , 306, 412 S.E.2d 308 , 314 (1991). | 2 | 5 |
State v. McLaughlingreen2 sentences2018Moreover, *487 the Court clarified that the reference to Article I, Section 24 in Ashe "was intended to convey no more than the seemingly obvious proposition that for a trial judge to give explanatory instructions to fewer than all jurors violated only the unanimity requirement imposed on jury verdicts by Article I, [S]ection 24." McLaughlin , 320 N.C. at 569 , 359 S.E.2d at 772 . 2018Moreover, *487 the Court clarified that the reference to Article I, Section 24 in Ashe "was intended to convey no more than the seemingly obvious proposition that for a trial judge to give explanatory instructions to fewer than all jurors violated only the unanimity requirement imposed on jury verdicts by Article I, [S]ection 24." McLaughlin , 320 N.C. at 569 , 359 S.E.2d at 772 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences1991See State v. Smith, 328 N.C. 99, 138-39 , 400 S.E.2d 712, 734-35 (1991); State v. Brown, 327 N.C. 1, 29-30 , 394 S.E.2d 434, 451-52 (1990). 1991See State v. Smith, 328 N.C. 99, 138-39 , 400 S.E.2d 712, 734-35 (1991); State v. Brown, 327 N.C. 1, 29-30 , 394 S.E.2d 434, 451-52 (1990). | 2 | 3 |
State v. McKoygreen2 sentences1992This Court has specifically held to the contrary in State v. McKoy, 327 N.C. 31, 44 , 394 S.E.2d 426, 433 (1990). 1992This Court has specifically held to the contrary in State v. McKoy, 327 N.C. 31, 44 , 394 S.E.2d 426, 433 (1990). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McCarvergreen2 sentences2001That is, the jury should answer Issues One, Three, and Four on the standard form used in capital cases either unanimously “yes” or unanimously “no.” *449 State v. McCarver, 341 N.C. at 389-90, 462 S.E.2d at 39 (citations altered). 2001That is, the jury should answer Issues One, Three, and Four on the standard form used in capital cases either unanimously “yes” or unanimously “no.” *449 State v. McCarver, 341 N.C. at 389-90, 462 S.E.2d at 39 (citations altered). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Bellgreen2 sentences2016The unanimity requirement is not violated "if the trial court merely instructs the jury disjunctively as to various alternative acts which will establish an element of the offense [.]" *333 State v. Bell , 359 N.C. 1 , 30, 603 S.E.2d 93 , 113 (2004) (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Lyons , 330 N.C. 298 , 302-03, 412 S.E.2d 308 , 312 (1991) ). 2016The unanimity requirement is not violated "if the trial court merely instructs the jury disjunctively as to various alternative acts which will establish an element of the offense [.]" *333 State v. Bell , 359 N.C. 1 , 30, 603 S.E.2d 93 , 113 (2004) (emphasis in original) (quoting State v. Lyons , 330 N.C. 298 , 302-03, 412 S.E.2d 308 , 312 (1991) ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Kirkleyred2 sentences1995As to Issue One, the majority’s decision seems contra to (1) State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. 196, 219 , 302 S.E.2d 144, 157 (1983) (“The unanimity requirement is only placed upon the finding of whether an aggravating . . . circumstance exists.”); (2) the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction, N.C.P.I. — Crim. 150.10 (1990) (“If you do not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that one of these facts existed, you would answer Issue One-A ‘No[.]’ ”); and (3) Justice Meyer’s dissenting opinion in State v. Hightower, 331 N.C. 636, 648 , 417 S.E.2d 237, 244 (1992) (Meyer, J., dissenting) (“I conc 1995As to Issue One, the majority’s decision seems contra to (1) State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. 196, 219 , 302 S.E.2d 144, 157 (1983) (“The unanimity requirement is only placed upon the finding of whether an aggravating . . . circumstance exists.”); (2) the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction, N.C.P.I. — Crim. 150.10 (1990) (“If you do not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that one of these facts existed, you would answer Issue One-A ‘No[.]’ ”); and (3) Justice Meyer’s dissenting opinion in State v. Hightower, 331 N.C. 636, 648 , 417 S.E.2d 237, 244 (1992) (Meyer, J., dissenting) (“I conc | 1 | 2 |
State v. Watlingtongreen2 sentences2026Watlington I, 294 N.C. App. at 505, 903 S.E.2d at 405. 2026Watlington I, 294 N.C. App. at 505, 903 S.E.2d at 405. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carrigangreen2 sentences2022The jury was not required to make specific findings regarding which sexual acts Defendant committed, State v. Carrigan, 161 N.C. App. 256, 263 , 589 S.E.2d 134, 139 (2003), and the trial court’s instruction satisfied the unanimity requirement. 2022The jury was not required to make specific findings regarding which sexual acts Defendant committed, State v. Carrigan, 161 N.C. App. 256, 263 , 589 S.E.2d 134, 139 (2003), and the trial court’s instruction satisfied the unanimity requirement. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2019Thus, "even if some jurors [were to find] that [a] defendant engaged in one kind of sexual misconduct, while others found that he engaged in another, the jury as a whole would [still have] unanimously f[ou]nd that there occurred sexual conduct within the ambit of any immoral, improper, or indecent liberties." Lawrence , 360 N.C. at 374 , 627 S.E.2d at 612 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2019Thus, "even if some jurors [were to find] that [a] defendant engaged in one kind of sexual misconduct, while others found that he engaged in another, the jury as a whole would [still have] unanimously f[ou]nd that there occurred sexual conduct within the ambit of any immoral, improper, or indecent liberties." Lawrence , 360 N.C. at 374 , 627 S.E.2d at 612 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nelsongreen2 sentences2009We later explained in State v. McLaughlin, 320 N.C. 564, 569 , 359 S.E.2d 768, 772 (1987), that our reference to Article I, Section 24 in Ashe “was intended to convey no more than the seemingly obvious proposition that for a trial judge to give explanatory instructions to fewer than all jurors violated . . . the unanimity requirement imposed on jury verdicts by Article I, section 24.” Similarly, in State v. Nelson, 341 N.C. 695, 698 , 462 S.E.2d 225, 226 (1995), the jury requested a review of evidence during the defendant’s trial for second-degree rape and first-degree kidnapping. 2009We later explained in State v. McLaughlin, 320 N.C. 564, 569 , 359 S.E.2d 768, 772 (1987), that our reference to Article I, Section 24 in Ashe “was intended to convey no more than the seemingly obvious proposition that for a trial judge to give explanatory instructions to fewer than all jurors violated . . . the unanimity requirement imposed on jury verdicts by Article I, section 24.” Similarly, in State v. Nelson, 341 N.C. 695, 698 , 462 S.E.2d 225, 226 (1995), the jury requested a review of evidence during the defendant’s trial for second-degree rape and first-degree kidnapping. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Arceogreen2 sentences2004When the State chooses not to elect, this jury instruction must be given to ensure the jury’s understanding of the unanimity requirement. *560 See also, e.g., State v. Arceo, 84 Haw. 1, 32-33 , 928 P.2d 843, 874-75 (Haw. 1996): [W]hen separate and distinct culpable acts are subsumed within a single count charging a sexual assault. . the defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict is violated unless ... (1) at or before the close of its case-in-chief, the prosecution is required to elect the specific act upon which it is relying to establish the “conduct” element of the charged offe 2004When the State chooses not to elect, this jury instruction must be given to ensure the jury’s understanding of the unanimity requirement. *560 See also, e.g., State v. Arceo, 84 Haw. 1, 32-33 , 928 P.2d 843, 874-75 (Haw. 1996): [W]hen separate and distinct culpable acts are subsumed within a single count charging a sexual assault. . the defendant’s constitutional right to a unanimous verdict is violated unless ... (1) at or before the close of its case-in-chief, the prosecution is required to elect the specific act upon which it is relying to establish the “conduct” element of the charged offe | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cheekgreen2 sentences2001That is, the jury should answer Issues One, Three, and Four on the standard form used in capital cases either unanimously “yes” or unanimously “no.” McCarver, 341 N.C. at 390 , 462 S.E.2d at 39 , quoted in State v. Cheek, 351 N.C. 48, 85 , 520 S.E.2d 545, 566-67 (1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1245 , 147 L. 2001That is, the jury should answer Issues One, Three, and Four on the standard form used in capital cases either unanimously “yes” or unanimously “no.” McCarver, 341 N.C. at 390 , 462 S.E.2d at 39 , quoted in State v. Cheek, 351 N.C. 48, 85 , 520 S.E.2d 545, 566-67 (1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1245 , 147 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hightowergreen2 sentences1995As to Issue One, the majority’s decision seems contra to (1) State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. 196, 219 , 302 S.E.2d 144, 157 (1983) (“The unanimity requirement is only placed upon the finding of whether an aggravating . . . circumstance exists.”); (2) the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction, N.C.P.I. — Crim. 150.10 (1990) (“If you do not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that one of these facts existed, you would answer Issue One-A ‘No[.]’ ”); and (3) Justice Meyer’s dissenting opinion in State v. Hightower, 331 N.C. 636, 648 , 417 S.E.2d 237, 244 (1992) (Meyer, J., dissenting) (“I conc 1995As to Issue One, the majority’s decision seems contra to (1) State v. Kirkley, 308 N.C. 196, 219 , 302 S.E.2d 144, 157 (1983) (“The unanimity requirement is only placed upon the finding of whether an aggravating . . . circumstance exists.”); (2) the North Carolina Pattern Jury Instruction, N.C.P.I. — Crim. 150.10 (1990) (“If you do not unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that one of these facts existed, you would answer Issue One-A ‘No[.]’ ”); and (3) Justice Meyer’s dissenting opinion in State v. Hightower, 331 N.C. 636, 648 , 417 S.E.2d 237, 244 (1992) (Meyer, J., dissenting) (“I conc | 1 | 1 |
| Griffith v. Kentuckygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Cupp v. Naughtengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Utilities Commission & Duke Power Co. v. Eddlemangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mills v. Maryland
green
2 sentences1990One of the preservation issues raised by defendant relates to the applicability of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), to the unanimity requirement for mitigating circumstances in determining whether death is the appropriate punishment in a given case. 1990One of the preservation issues raised by defendant relates to the applicability of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 , 108 S.Ct. 1860 , 100 L.Ed.2d 384 (1988), to the unanimity requirement for mitigating circumstances in determining whether death is the appropriate punishment in a given case. | 8 | 1988–1994 |
State v. Hartness
green
2 sentences1996In State v. Lyons, 330 N.C. 298 , 412 S.E.2d 308 (1991), our Supreme Court discussed the unanimity requirement in regard to disjunctive instructions and distinguished two separate lines of cases, *282 represented by State v. Diaz, 317 N.C. 545 , 346 S.E.2d 488 (1986) and State v. Hartness, 326 N.C. 561 , 391 S.E.2d 177 (1990). 1996In State v. Lyons, 330 N.C. 298 , 412 S.E.2d 308 (1991), our Supreme Court discussed the unanimity requirement in regard to disjunctive instructions and distinguished two separate lines of cases, *282 represented by State v. Diaz, 317 N.C. 545 , 346 S.E.2d 488 (1986) and State v. Hartness, 326 N.C. 561 , 391 S.E.2d 177 (1990). | 4 | 1990–2008 |
State v. Diaz
yellow
2 sentences1996In State v. Lyons, 330 N.C. 298 , 412 S.E.2d 308 (1991), our Supreme Court discussed the unanimity requirement in regard to disjunctive instructions and distinguished two separate lines of cases, *282 represented by State v. Diaz, 317 N.C. 545 , 346 S.E.2d 488 (1986) and State v. Hartness, 326 N.C. 561 , 391 S.E.2d 177 (1990). 1996In State v. Lyons, 330 N.C. 298 , 412 S.E.2d 308 (1991), our Supreme Court discussed the unanimity requirement in regard to disjunctive instructions and distinguished two separate lines of cases, *282 represented by State v. Diaz, 317 N.C. 545 , 346 S.E.2d 488 (1986) and State v. Hartness, 326 N.C. 561 , 391 S.E.2d 177 (1990). | 3 | 1990–2008 |
McKoy v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1994In McKoy, the United States Supreme Court held that the unanimity requirement of North Carolina’s capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional because it prevented “the jury from considering, in deciding whether to impose the death penalty, any mitigating factor that the jury does not unanimously find.” McKoy, 494 U.S. at 435 , 108 L. 1994In McKoy, the United States Supreme Court held that the unanimity requirement of North Carolina’s capital sentencing scheme was unconstitutional because it prevented “the jury from considering, in deciding whether to impose the death penalty, any mitigating factor that the jury does not unanimously find.” McKoy, 494 U.S. at 435 , 108 L. | 3 | 1990–1994 |
State v. McKoy
red
2 sentences1988The majority concludes the sentencing hearing jury instructions on the unanimity requirement do not violate the federal constitution as interpreted in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. ---, 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988), on the basis of this Court’s decision on this issue in State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 (1988). 1988The majority concludes the sentencing hearing jury instructions on the unanimity requirement do not violate the federal constitution as interpreted in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. ---, 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988), on the basis of this Court’s decision on this issue in State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 (1988). | 3 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Creason
green
2 sentences1990Cf. State v. Hartness, 326 N.C. 561 , 391 S.E.2d 177 (1990) (addressing the unanimity requirement in the context of indecent liberties); State v. Creason, 313 N.C. 122 , 326 S.E.2d 24 (1985) (concerning possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver); Jones v. All American Life Ins. 1990Cf. State v. Hartness, 326 N.C. 561 , 391 S.E.2d 177 (1990) (addressing the unanimity requirement in the context of indecent liberties); State v. Creason, 313 N.C. 122 , 326 S.E.2d 24 (1985) (concerning possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell or deliver); Jones v. All American Life Ins. | 2 | 1990–1996 |
State v. Allen
yellow
2 sentences1988If, in the sentencing phase, the Court were addressing the unanimity instruction issue for the first time, I would agree with defendant’s position that these instructions violate the Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution as that amendment was interpreted in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. ---, 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988), for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 (1988), and State v. Allen, 323 N.C. 208 , 372 S.E. 2d 855 (1988). 1988If, in the sentencing phase, the Court were addressing the unanimity instruction issue for the first time, I would agree with defendant’s position that these instructions violate the Eighth Amendment to the federal constitution as that amendment was interpreted in Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. ---, 100 L.Ed. 2d 384 (1988), for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in State v. McKoy, 323 N.C. 1 , 372 S.E. 2d 12 (1988), and State v. Allen, 323 N.C. 208 , 372 S.E. 2d 855 (1988). | 2 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Walters
green
2 sentences2022Walters, 368 N.C. at 753 , 782 S.E.2d at 508 . ¶ 15 Even assuming arguendo that the jury instructions included an act or acts not supported by the evidence, Defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that the inclusion of “fellatio” as to R.P. and M.P., and the inclusion of “vaginal penetration” as to R.P., had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that Defendant was guilty. ¶ 16 R.P. testified that Defendant “would take off my underwear and shorts . . . [and] touch me with his hands and mouth.” R.P. testified that after the first time Defendant used his mouth on her vagina, it happe 2022Walters, 368 N.C. at 753 , 782 S.E.2d at 508 . ¶ 15 Even assuming arguendo that the jury instructions included an act or acts not supported by the evidence, Defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that the inclusion of “fellatio” as to R.P. and M.P., and the inclusion of “vaginal penetration” as to R.P., had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that Defendant was guilty. ¶ 16 R.P. testified that Defendant “would take off my underwear and shorts . . . [and] touch me with his hands and mouth.” R.P. testified that after the first time Defendant used his mouth on her vagina, it happe | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Funchess
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Worthington
green
1 sentence2014We addressed this identical argument in State v. Worthington, 84 N.C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Holden
green
1 sentence2005State v. Holden, 160 N.C. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Horning v. United States
green
1 sentence2001That is, the jury should answer Issues One, Three, and Four on the standard form used in capital cases either unanimously “yes” or unanimously “no.” McCarver, 341 N.C. at 390 , 462 S.E.2d at 39 , quoted in State v. Cheek, 351 N.C. 48, 85 , 520 S.E.2d 545, 566-67 (1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1245 , 147 L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Cheek v. North Carolina
green
1 sentence2001That is, the jury should answer Issues One, Three, and Four on the standard form used in capital cases either unanimously “yes” or unanimously “no.” McCarver, 341 N.C. at 390 , 462 S.E.2d at 39 , quoted in State v. Cheek, 351 N.C. 48, 85 , 520 S.E.2d 545, 566-67 (1999), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1245 , 147 L. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Richardson v. United States
green
2 sentences2000Moreover, the case relied on by Kevin to support the unanimity requirement, Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 , 143 L. 2000Moreover, the case relied on by Kevin to support the unanimity requirement, Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 , 143 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Belton
red
2 sentences1996However, the unanimity requirement is not violated, in accordance with the Hartness line of cases, when the acts charged in the disjunctive constitute “ ‘a single wrong’ ” which can be established by “ ‘a finding of various alternative elements.’ ” Id. at 306, 412 S.E.2d at 314 . (quoting Hartness, 326 N.C. at 566 , 391 S.E.2d at 180 .) Our Supreme Court considered an argument similar to that made by defendant in State v. Belton, 318 N.C. 141 , 347 S.E.2d 755 (1986). 1996However, the unanimity requirement is not violated, in accordance with the Hartness line of cases, when the acts charged in the disjunctive constitute “ ‘a single wrong’ ” which can be established by “ ‘a finding of various alternative elements.’ ” Id. at 306, 412 S.E.2d at 314 . (quoting Hartness, 326 N.C. at 566 , 391 S.E.2d at 180 .) Our Supreme Court considered an argument similar to that made by defendant in State v. Belton, 318 N.C. 141 , 347 S.E.2d 755 (1986). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Walls
green
2 sentences1995State v. Walls, 342 N.C. 1 , 68, 463 S.E.2d 738 , 774 (1995). 1995State v. Walls, 342 N.C. 1 , 68, 463 S.E.2d 738 , 774 (1995). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| State v. Britt neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Jones v. All American Life Insurance green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.