216 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1940–2026 21 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. Odomgreen2 sentences2016To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518 , 723 S.E.2d at 334 (internal citation omitted) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)). “[P]lain error is to be ‘applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case’ ” in which a defendant can show that the prejudicial error is “one that ‘seriously a£fect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ 2016To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518 , 723 S.E.2d at 334 (internal citation omitted) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)). “[P]lain error is to be ‘applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case’ ” in which a defendant can show that the prejudicial error is “one that ‘seriously a£fect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ | 3 | 3 |
State v. Blackstockgreen2 sentences2014Stat. § 15A-1232 further states in relevant part that “[i]n instructing the jury, the judge shall not express an opinion as to whether or not a fact has been proved[.]” Prejudicial error results where “the jury may reasonably infer from the evidence before it that the trial judge’s action intimated an opinion as to a factual issue, the defendant’s guilt, the weight of the evidence or a witness’s credibility[.]” State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 236 , 333 S.E.2d 245, 248 (1985). 2014Stat. § 15A-1232 further states in relevant part that “[i]n instructing the jury, the judge shall not express an opinion as to whether or not a fact has been proved[.]” Prejudicial error results where “the jury may reasonably infer from the evidence before it that the trial judge’s action intimated an opinion as to a factual issue, the defendant’s guilt, the weight of the evidence or a witness’s credibility[.]” State v. Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232, 236 , 333 S.E.2d 245, 248 (1985). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2016To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518 , 723 S.E.2d at 334 (internal citation omitted) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)). “[P]lain error is to be ‘applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case’ ” in which a defendant can show that the prejudicial error is “one that ‘seriously a£fect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ 2016To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’ ” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518 , 723 S.E.2d at 334 (internal citation omitted) (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983)). “[P]lain error is to be ‘applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case’ ” in which a defendant can show that the prejudicial error is “one that ‘seriously a£fect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ | 2 | 4 |
State v. Slaughtergreen2 sentences2021See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225 , 237, 835 S.E.2d 830 , 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242 , 827 S.E.2d 288 , 298–99 (2019) (holding that trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 , 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018 2021See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225 , 237, 835 S.E.2d 830 , 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242 , 827 S.E.2d 288 , 298–99 (2019) (holding that trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 , 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018 | 2 | 2 |
Branch v. Travelers Indemnity Companygreen2 sentences2020“In light of the circumstances of this case and the trial court’s instructions on self-defense,” Webster, 324 N.C. at 393 , 378 S.E.2d at 753 , as explained in Section VI, we conclude that the trial court committed prejudicial error in striking Tom’s testimony that he “hear[d] Molly scream[,] ‘Don’t hurt my dad.’ ” Cf. id. at 392-94 , 378 S.E.2d at 753-54 (awarding the defendant a new trial where the trial court “erroneously sustained the State’s objection to the question about whether [the] defendant felt that his life was threatened because that evidence was highly relevant to the crucial qu 2020“In light of the circumstances of this case and the trial court’s instructions on self-defense,” Webster, 324 N.C. at 393 , 378 S.E.2d at 753 , as explained in Section VI, we conclude that the trial court committed prejudicial error in striking Tom’s testimony that he “hear[d] Molly scream[,] ‘Don’t hurt my dad.’ ” Cf. id. at 392-94 , 378 S.E.2d at 753-54 (awarding the defendant a new trial where the trial court “erroneously sustained the State’s objection to the question about whether [the] defendant felt that his life was threatened because that evidence was highly relevant to the crucial qu | 2 | 2 |
State v. Brittgreen2 sentences2007State v. Britt, 291 N.C. 528, 537 , 231 S.E.2d 644, 651 (1977). “[T]o reach the level of prejudicial error in this regard . . . the prosecutor’s comments must have so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” State v. Worthy, 341 N.C. 707, 709-10 , 462 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1995) (citation omitted). 2007State v. Britt, 291 N.C. 528, 537 , 231 S.E.2d 644, 651 (1977). “[T]o reach the level of prejudicial error in this regard . . . the prosecutor’s comments must have so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” State v. Worthy, 341 N.C. 707, 709-10 , 462 S.E.2d 482, 483 (1995) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Greengreen2 sentences2007We agree with defendant that the curative instruction did not relate to the statements made concerning the State’s experts “working for” the jury, but we agree with the State *608 that any prejudice arising from these statements did not “ ‘so infect[] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Green, 336 N.C. at 186 , 443 S.E.2d at 39 (citations omitted). 2007We agree with defendant that the curative instruction did not relate to the statements made concerning the State’s experts “working for” the jury, but we agree with the State *608 that any prejudice arising from these statements did not “ ‘so infect[] the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Green, 336 N.C. at 186 , 443 S.E.2d at 39 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Wigginsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Alstongreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Bronsongreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gricegreen2 sentences2019"In order to ensure plain error is reserved for the exceptional case, ... plain error requires a defendant to show that the prejudicial error was one that seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753 , 764, 767 S.E.2d 312 , 321 (2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2019"In order to ensure plain error is reserved for the exceptional case, ... plain error requires a defendant to show that the prejudicial error was one that seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." State v. Grice, 367 N.C. 753 , 764, 767 S.E.2d 312 , 321 (2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Longgreen2 sentences2016Long, 196 N.C.App. at 40 -41 , 674 S.E.2d at 707 . 2013App. at 40-41 , 674 S.E.2d at 707 (holding that when testimony of a victim and a defendant was “contradicting,” the trial court committed prejudicial error by refusing the jury’s request to review the testimony). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hennisgreen2 sentences2015See, e.g., Hennis, 323 N.C. at 283, 286-87 , 372 S.E.2d at 526, 531 (finding prejudicial error in a trial court decision to allow the admission of thirty-five gruesome photographs depicting the decayed bodies of murder victims displayed on a screen positioned immediately over the defendant’s head and distributed one at a time to the jury over the course of an hour); State v. Kimbrell, 320 N.C. 762, 768-69 , 360 S.E.2d 691, 694-95 (1987) (holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence that the defendant engaged in “devil worship” because the evidence “had little 2015See, e.g., Hennis, 323 N.C. at 283, 286-87 , 372 S.E.2d at 526, 531 (finding prejudicial error in a trial court decision to allow the admission of thirty-five gruesome photographs depicting the decayed bodies of murder victims displayed on a screen positioned immediately over the defendant’s head and distributed one at a time to the jury over the course of an hour); State v. Kimbrell, 320 N.C. 762, 768-69 , 360 S.E.2d 691, 694-95 (1987) (holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by admitting evidence that the defendant engaged in “devil worship” because the evidence “had little | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2009App. at 363 , 309 S.E.2d at 513 (holding that the trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to give a requested instruction on the probative value of fingerprint evidence where the State, relied primarily on that evidence). 1986Defendant cites State v. Bradley, 65 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
State v. McCoygreen2 sentences2008Id. at 111 , 620 S.E.2d at 868 . 2005See, e.g., State v. McCoy, ___ N.C.App. ___, ___, 620 S.E.2d 863, 868 (2005) ("Because we are unable to distinguish this case [in which a conviction was admitted under 404(b)] from Wilkerson, we conclude that the trial court committed prejudicial error entitling defendant to a new trial."). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wilkersongreen2 sentences2006Because the defendant did not testify, the State could not *290 use Rule 609 to elicit evidence of his prior convictions, and, Judge Wynn maintained, “the trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing [the clerk’s] testimony of [the] defendant’s prior convictions under Rule 404(b).” Id. at 319 , 559 S.E.2d at 11 . 2006Because the defendant did not testify, the State could not *290 use Rule 609 to elicit evidence of his prior convictions, and, Judge Wynn maintained, “the trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing [the clerk’s] testimony of [the] defendant’s prior convictions under Rule 404(b).” Id. at 319 , 559 S.E.2d at 11 . | 1 | 2 |
| Matter of Shuegreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Rathbonegreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Secretary for the Department of Correctionsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Winston v. Boatwrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Graygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mooregreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Robinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wilkersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Willisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kimbrellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Andersongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ryangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bushgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Giddensgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Cousergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Stanleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Younggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Blackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Betheagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Deleveaux
green
2 sentences2022From my perspective, the lower appellate court correctly concluded that defendant satisfied the four factors which we established in State v. Mercer, 373 N.C. 459 (2020), and as adopted from the federal appeals court case of United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000), based upon the evidence presented in support of the justification defense which must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant. 2022From my perspective, the lower appellate court correctly concluded that defendant satisfied the four factors which we established in State v. Mercer, 373 N.C. 459 (2020), and as adopted from the federal appeals court case of United States v. Deleveaux, 205 F.3d 1292 (11th Cir. 2000), based upon the evidence presented in support of the justification defense which must be viewed in the light most favorable to defendant. | 3 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Ramey
green
2 sentences2014App. 623 , 626–27, 334 S.E.2d 247 , 249–50 (ordering a new trial when the issue was properly preserved for appellate review on grounds that the second witness should have been asked, “at the least,” to recall the substance of the first witness’s pre-trial statements before giving his opinion as to whether the first witness’s trial testimony was consistent), disc. rev. denied, 315 N.C. 188 , 337 S.E.2d 863 (1985) and State v. Ramey, 318 N.C. 457 , 467–73, 349 S.E.2d 566 , 572–76 (1986) (holding that the witness’s testimony that the victim had never told him anything inconsistent was inadmissibl 2014App. 623 , 626–27, 334 S.E.2d 247 , 249–50 (ordering a new trial when the issue was properly preserved for appellate review on grounds that the second witness should have been asked, “at the least,” to recall the substance of the first witness’s pre-trial statements before giving his opinion as to whether the first witness’s trial testimony was consistent), disc. rev. denied, 315 N.C. 188 , 337 S.E.2d 863 (1985) and State v. Ramey, 318 N.C. 457 , 467–73, 349 S.E.2d 566 , 572–76 (1986) (holding that the witness’s testimony that the victim had never told him anything inconsistent was inadmissibl | 3 | 1992–2014 |
State v. . Love
neutral
2 sentences1944S. v. Love, 187 N. C., 32 , 121 S. E., 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N. C., 661 , 194 S. E., 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N. C., 505 , 11 S. E. (2d), 473 . 1944S. v. Love, 187 N. C., 32 , 121 S. E., 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N. C., 661 , 194 S. E., 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N. C., 505 , 11 S. E. (2d), 473 . | 3 | 1940–1944 |
Smith v. Stanfield Hosiery Mill, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1944S. v. Love, 187 N. C., 32 , 121 S. E., 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N. C., 661 , 194 S. E., 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N. C., 505 , 11 S. E. (2d), 473 . 1944S. v. Love, 187 N. C., 32 , 121 S. E., 20 ; Smith v. Hosiery Mill, 212 N. C., 661 , 194 S. E., 83 ; S. v. Wyont, 218 N. C., 505 , 11 S. E. (2d), 473 . | 3 | 1940–1944 |
State v. Hoyle
green
2 sentences2022App. 292 , 741 S.E.2d 434 (2013) and State v. Hoyle, 325 N.C. 232 , 382 S.E.2d 752 (1989) to support the erroneous admission of the detective’s testimony in the present case does not rise to the level of the prejudicial error found in both cases. 2022App. 292 , 741 S.E.2d 434 (2013) and State v. Hoyle, 325 N.C. 232 , 382 S.E.2d 752 (1989) to support the erroneous admission of the detective’s testimony in the present case does not rise to the level of the prejudicial error found in both cases. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Richardson
green
2 sentences2022App. 292 , 741 S.E.2d 434 (2013) and State v. Hoyle, 325 N.C. 232 , 382 S.E.2d 752 (1989) to support the erroneous admission of the detective’s testimony in the present case does not rise to the level of the prejudicial error found in both cases. 2022App. 292 , 741 S.E.2d 434 (2013) and State v. Hoyle, 325 N.C. 232 , 382 S.E.2d 752 (1989) to support the erroneous admission of the detective’s testimony in the present case does not rise to the level of the prejudicial error found in both cases. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Malachi
green
2 sentences2021See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225 , 237, 835 S.E.2d 830 , 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242 , 827 S.E.2d 288 , 298–99 (2019) (holding that trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 , 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018 2021See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225 , 237, 835 S.E.2d 830 , 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242 , 827 S.E.2d 288 , 298–99 (2019) (holding that trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 , 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018 | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Bohler
green
2 sentences2021App. at 637–38, 681 S.E.2d at 806 . ¶ 18 Because we remand the case for a new sentencing hearing, we need not consider whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his stipulations to out-of-court convictions or whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by miscalculating Defendant’s prior record level. 2021App. at 637–38, 681 S.E.2d at 806 . ¶ 18 Because we remand the case for a new sentencing hearing, we need not consider whether Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel with respect to his stipulations to out-of-court convictions or whether the trial court committed prejudicial error by miscalculating Defendant’s prior record level. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Mumma
green
2 sentences2021See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225 , 237, 835 S.E.2d 830 , 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242 , 827 S.E.2d 288 , 298–99 (2019) (holding that trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 , 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018 2021See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225 , 237, 835 S.E.2d 830 , 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242 , 827 S.E.2d 288 , 298–99 (2019) (holding that trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 , 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018 | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Starr
green
2 sentences2021See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225 , 237, 835 S.E.2d 830 , 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242 , 827 S.E.2d 288 , 298–99 (2019) (holding that trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 , 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018 2021See State v. Corey, 373 N.C. 225 , 237, 835 S.E.2d 830 , 838 (2019) (holding that trial court’s failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 15A-1231(b) before submitting the issue of whether an aggravating factor existed in the case was not materially prejudicial under N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1443(a)); State v. Mumma, 372 N.C. 226, 242 , 827 S.E.2d 288 , 298–99 (2019) (holding that trial court’s error in allowing the jury to review graphic photographs of the murder victim over the defendant’s objection was not prejudicial error under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)); State v. Malachi, 371 N.C. 719 , 821 S.E.2d 407 (2018 | 2 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Fuller
green
2 sentences2021In re Fuller, 144 N.C. 2021In re Fuller, 144 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Graham
green
2 sentences2021In light of the entire record and evidence of the defendant’s guilt, this Court applied the prejudicial standard under Section 15A-1443(a) and held there was no “reasonable possibility that the jury’s verdict would have been different.” Id. at 192 , 650 S.E.2d at 647 . ¶ 39 Here, Buddy’s brothers were not present for his murder. 2021In light of the entire record and evidence of the defendant’s guilt, this Court applied the prejudicial standard under Section 15A-1443(a) and held there was no “reasonable possibility that the jury’s verdict would have been different.” Id. at 192 , 650 S.E.2d at 647 . ¶ 39 Here, Buddy’s brothers were not present for his murder. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Webster
green
2 sentences2020“In light of the circumstances of this case and the trial court’s instructions on self-defense,” Webster, 324 N.C. at 393 , 378 S.E.2d at 753 , as explained in Section VI, we conclude that the trial court committed prejudicial error in striking Tom’s testimony that he “hear[d] Molly scream[,] ‘Don’t hurt my dad.’ ” Cf. id. at 392-94 , 378 S.E.2d at 753-54 (awarding the defendant a new trial where the trial court “erroneously sustained the State’s objection to the question about whether [the] defendant felt that his life was threatened because that evidence was highly relevant to the crucial qu 2020“In light of the circumstances of this case and the trial court’s instructions on self-defense,” Webster, 324 N.C. at 393 , 378 S.E.2d at 753 , as explained in Section VI, we conclude that the trial court committed prejudicial error in striking Tom’s testimony that he “hear[d] Molly scream[,] ‘Don’t hurt my dad.’ ” Cf. id. at 392-94 , 378 S.E.2d at 753-54 (awarding the defendant a new trial where the trial court “erroneously sustained the State’s objection to the question about whether [the] defendant felt that his life was threatened because that evidence was highly relevant to the crucial qu | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2016This Court found that the prosecutor erred by “misstat[ing] the maximum recommitment period,” but concluded that such “misstatement did not rise to the level of prejudicial error.”4 Id. at 195 , 367 S.E.2d at 637 . 2016This Court found that the prosecutor erred by “misstat[ing] the maximum recommitment period,” but concluded that such “misstatement did not rise to the level of prejudicial error.”4 Id. at 195 , 367 S.E.2d at 637 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Walston
green
2 sentences2013Moreover, while this Court in Walston concluded that the trial court committed prejudicial error, see id. at_, 747 S.E.2d at 728 , this defendant makes no specific argument that he has suffered any prejudice as a result of the trial court’s uncontested use of the term “victim” in its jury instructions. 2013Moreover, while this Court in Walston concluded that the trial court committed prejudicial error, see id. at_, 747 S.E.2d at 728 , this defendant makes no specific argument that he has suffered any prejudice as a result of the trial court’s uncontested use of the term “victim” in its jury instructions. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2009Defendant argues that these statements were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L. 1982He first charges that the trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied his motion to suppress an out-of-court statement allegedly obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 2 | 1982–2009 |
State v. Dennison
neutral
2 sentences2005On 6 April 2004, we filed State v. Dennison, 163 N.C.App. 375 , 594 S.E.2d 82 (2004), rev'd per curiam, 359 N.C. 312 , 608 S.E.2d 756 (2005), in which we determined that defendant was entitled to a new trial based upon the prejudicial error of admitting evidence regarding defendant's prior violent acts against a former girlfriend. 2005On 6 April 2004, we filed State v. Dennison, 163 N.C.App. 375 , 594 S.E.2d 82 (2004), rev'd per curiam, 359 N.C. 312 , 608 S.E.2d 756 (2005), in which we determined that defendant was entitled to a new trial based upon the prejudicial error of admitting evidence regarding defendant's prior violent acts against a former girlfriend. | 2 | 2005–2006 |
| State v. Eury green | 2 | 1994–1996 |
| State v. Rainey green | 2 | 1954–1958 |
| State v. Thaggard green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Rainey green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Aguallo green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. McNicholas green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Lineberger green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Osorio green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Lang green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. McLaughlin green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Ashe green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Juarez green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Frady green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Edwards v. Edwards green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Cnty. of Durham v. Orr neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Boshers green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Prevette green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Summers green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| G. R. Little Agency, Inc. v. Jennings green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Small green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Norwood green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Sanders neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Norman neutral | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.