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.
5 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2021–2022 5 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. Watsongreen2 sentences2022See Watson, 281 N.C. at 233 (determining that a Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). ¶ 45 Here, we assume without deciding that the trial court’s admission of Lewallen’s testimony regarding the results of Deitz’s confirmatory test of Forero’s urine sample violated defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. 2022See Watson, 281 N.C. at 233 (determining that a Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt). ¶ 45 Here, we assume without deciding that the trial court’s admission of Lewallen’s testimony regarding the results of Deitz’s confirmatory test of Forero’s urine sample violated defendant’s right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Nelson v. Colorado
green
2 sentences2021Defendant’s argument is overruled. ¶ 84 Defendant filed a memorandum of addition authority in accordance with Rule 28 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and argued the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Nelson v. Colorado, __ U.S. __, 197 L. Ed. 2d 611 (2017) as an alternative ground to uphold the trial court’s suppression order of the confirmatory test of Defendant’s blood sample. 2021Defendant’s argument is overruled. ¶ 84 Defendant filed a memorandum of additional authority in accordance with Rule 28 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and argued the Supreme Court of the United States decision in Nelson v. Colorado, __ U.S. __, 197 L. Ed. 2d 611 (2017) as an alternative ground to uphold the trial court’s suppression order of the confirmatory test of Defendant’s blood sample. | 3 | 2021–2021 |
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.