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.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2020 0 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. Raynorgreen2 sentences2020Generally, “[i]f at trial the defendant fails to object to a jury instruction, that instruction is reviewable on a plain error standard on appeal.” State v. Raynor, 128 N.C. App. 244, 247 , 495 S.E.2d 176, 178 (1998). 2020Generally, “[i]f at trial the defendant fails to object to a jury instruction, that instruction is reviewable on a plain error standard on appeal.” State v. Raynor, 128 N.C. App. 244, 247 , 495 S.E.2d 176, 178 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McNeilgreen2 sentences2019See McNeil , 350 N.C. at 680 , 518 S.E.2d at 500 (evidence of the thorough impeachment of a witness regarding inconsistent statements may result in harmless error). 2019See McNeil , 350 N.C. at 680 , 518 S.E.2d at 500 (evidence of the thorough impeachment of a witness regarding inconsistent statements may result in harmless error). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Storm
green
2 sentences2020Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously allowed Elmore to testify that he was “able to process his thoughts,” was “in touch with reality,” and could “function[] cognitively and physically.” Defendant further asserts that, because the key issue at trial was his ability to formulate the specific intent element of the charges, he was prejudiced by Elmore’s impermissible lay testimony, because the State’s and Defendant’s respective expert witnesses “largely canceled out the testimony of the other.” The State argues that any error resulting from Elmore’s challenged testimony was invited 2020Defendant contends that the trial court erroneously allowed Elmore to testify that he was “able to process his thoughts,” was “in touch with reality,” and could “function[] cognitively and physically.” Defendant further asserts that, because the key issue at trial was his ability to formulate the specific intent element of the charges, he was prejudiced by Elmore’s impermissible lay testimony, because the State’s and Defendant’s respective expert witnesses “largely canceled out the testimony of the other.” The State argues that any error resulting from Elmore’s challenged testimony was invited | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Ball v. United States
green
2 sentences1993In State v. Barnes, 324 N.C. 539 , 380 S.E.2d 118 (1989) our Supreme Court, relying, on reasoning in Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985), expressly overruled the previously existing general rule that “where concurrent sentences of equal length are imposed, any error in the charge relating to one count only is harmless.” This Barnes holding, that separate convictions may give rise to adverse collateral consequences, is equally applicable here. 1993In State v. Barnes, 324 N.C. 539 , 380 S.E.2d 118 (1989) our Supreme Court, relying, on reasoning in Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985), expressly overruled the previously existing general rule that “where concurrent sentences of equal length are imposed, any error in the charge relating to one count only is harmless.” This Barnes holding, that separate convictions may give rise to adverse collateral consequences, is equally applicable here. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence1993In State v. Barnes, 324 N.C. 539 , 380 S.E.2d 118 (1989) our Supreme Court, relying, on reasoning in Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985), expressly overruled the previously existing general rule that “where concurrent sentences of equal length are imposed, any error in the charge relating to one count only is harmless.” This Barnes holding, that separate convictions may give rise to adverse collateral consequences, is equally applicable here. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Barnes
green
1 sentence1993In State v. Barnes, 324 N.C. 539 , 380 S.E.2d 118 (1989) our Supreme Court, relying, on reasoning in Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856 , 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985), expressly overruled the previously existing general rule that “where concurrent sentences of equal length are imposed, any error in the charge relating to one count only is harmless.” This Barnes holding, that separate convictions may give rise to adverse collateral consequences, is equally applicable here. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.