second assignment error in North Carolina

2007Finally, we note that defendant included a second assignment of error challenging the constitutionality of his sentence, an issue he concedes in his brief has already been decided conclusively by this Court in State v. McIlwaine, 169 N.C.

2007App. 397 , 610 S.E.2d 399 (2005), and similar cases.

2002“A ruling on matters involving the sequestration of witnesses is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and is not reviewable absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. Williamson, 122 N.C.

1998State v. Williams, 341 N.C. 1, 16 , 459 S.E.2d 208, 217 (1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1128 , 133 L.

1994As to the defendant’s second assignment of error, we find no merit to his argument that the Pattern Jury Instructions given to the jury impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant in violation of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 25 L.

1994As to the defendant’s second assignment of error, we find no merit to his argument that the Pattern Jury Instructions given to the jury impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant in violation of In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 , 25 L.

1993In support of this contention, the plaintiff argues (A) that Mark Parker was not an agent of OBFS at the time he made the oral misrepresentations and, therefore, had no authority to bind OBFS, and (B) that the doctrine enunciated in D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 , 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942), and its progeny does *730 not prohibit the admission of such evidence on the facts of the present case.

1993In support of this contention, the plaintiff argues (A) that Mark Parker was not an agent of OBFS at the time he made the oral misrepresentations and, therefore, had no authority to bind OBFS, and (B) that the doctrine enunciated in D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447 , 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942), and its progeny does *730 not prohibit the admission of such evidence on the facts of the present case.

1983In his third assignment of error the defendant, relying on State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225 , 287 S.E. 2d 810 (1982); State v. Cornell[ 51 N.C.

1983In his third assignment of error the defendant, relying on State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225 , 287 S.E. 2d 810 (1982); State v. Cornell[ 51 N.C.

1983In his third assignment of error the defendant, relying on State v. Perry, 305 N.C. 225 , 287 S.E. 2d 810 (1982); State v. Cornell[ 51 N.C.

1982In his third assignment of error, the defendant asks us to reconsider our holding in State v. Poe, 40 N.C.

1981Overman v. Products Co., 30 N.C.

1980Defendant relies on State v. Miller, 270 N.C. 726 , 154 S.E. 2d 902 (1967).

1980Defendant relies on State v. Miller, 270 N.C. 726 , 154 S.E. 2d 902 (1967).

1980His contention overlooks the prior testimony of this witness, admitted without objection, to the effect that a window of the building “was completely taken out” and that “whoever it was . . . had to completely remove the molding to completely remove the glass.” The witness had also testified without objection, prior to the testimony objected to, that his inspection of “the building that had the window missing” had revealed that “there were a few packs of cigarettes and possibly a few bars of candy missing.” “It is the well established rule that when evidence is admitted over objection but the

1980His contention overlooks the prior testimony of this witness, admitted without objection, to the effect that a window of the building “was completely taken out” and that “whoever it was . . . had to completely remove the molding to completely remove the glass.” The witness had also testified without objection, prior to the testimony objected to, that his inspection of “the building that had the window missing” had revealed that “there were a few packs of cigarettes and possibly a few bars of candy missing.” “It is the well established rule that when evidence is admitted over objection but the

1978State v. Woods, 293 N.C. 58 , 235 S.E. 2d 47 (1977).

1978State v. Woods, 293 N.C. 58 , 235 S.E. 2d 47 (1977).

1978Though the defendant FUNB’s motion for a directed verdict against the plaintiffs was incorrectly designated as such, we have treated it as a motion for involuntary dismissal under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 41(b), similar to the motion for compulsory nonsuit under former G.S. 1-183, See Higgins v. Builders and Finance, Inc., 20 N.C.

1974McDonald v. Heating Co., 268 N.C. 496 , 151 S.E. 2d 27 (1966).

1974McDonald v. Heating Co., 268 N.C. 496 , 151 S.E. 2d 27 (1966).

1972There is no merit in this assignment of error for that the statement does not come within the Miranda doctrine (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)) as contended by the defendant.

1972There is no merit in this assignment of error for that the statement does not come within the Miranda doctrine (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 16 L.Ed. 2d 694 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966)) as contended by the defendant.

1970The Supreme Court of the United States sets forth the requirements that must be followed in juvenile hearings with respect to representation by counsel in In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 527 (1967).

1970The Supreme Court of the United States sets forth the requirements that must be followed in juvenile hearings with respect to representation by counsel in In Re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 527 (1967).

1968The second assignment of error was to the denial of the motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit entered at the close of the State’s evidence and the failure to direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of all of the evidence. *500 “The practice is thoroughly settled in this jurisdiction that on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence is to be considered in its most favorable light for the State, and the State is entitled to every inference of fact which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence, and contradictions and discrepancies in the State’s evidence are for the jury to resolve and do not

1968The second assignment of error was to the denial of the motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit entered at the close of the State’s evidence and the failure to direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of all of the evidence. *500 “The practice is thoroughly settled in this jurisdiction that on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence is to be considered in its most favorable light for the State, and the State is entitled to every inference of fact which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence, and contradictions and discrepancies in the State’s evidence are for the jury to resolve and do not

1968Furthermore, our State Supreme Court, in State v. Boles, 246 N.C. 83 , 97 S.E. 2d 476 , held that the propriety of disclosing the identity of an informer must depend on the circumstances of the case and at what stage of the proceedings the request is made.

1968Furthermore, our State Supreme Court, in State v. Boles, 246 N.C. 83 , 97 S.E. 2d 476 , held that the propriety of disclosing the identity of an informer must depend on the circumstances of the case and at what stage of the proceedings the request is made.

1968Like the motion of nonsuit “(t)he motion for a directed verdict of not guilty challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury.” State v. Wiley, 242 N.C. 114 , 86 S.E. 2d 913 ; State v. Glover, 270 N.C. 319 , 154 S.E. 2d 305 .

1968Like the motion of nonsuit “(t)he motion for a directed verdict of not guilty challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury.” State v. Wiley, 242 N.C. 114 , 86 S.E. 2d 913 ; State v. Glover, 270 N.C. 319 , 154 S.E. 2d 305 .

1968Like the motion of nonsuit “(t)he motion for a directed verdict of not guilty challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury.” State v. Wiley, 242 N.C. 114 , 86 S.E. 2d 913 ; State v. Glover, 270 N.C. 319 , 154 S.E. 2d 305 .

1968Like the motion of nonsuit “(t)he motion for a directed verdict of not guilty challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury.” State v. Wiley, 242 N.C. 114 , 86 S.E. 2d 913 ; State v. Glover, 270 N.C. 319 , 154 S.E. 2d 305 .

1968In State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156 , 84 S.E. 2d 545 , the Supreme Court said: “The distinction is this: The necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed.

1968In State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156 , 84 S.E. 2d 545 , the Supreme Court said: “The distinction is this: The necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed.

1963Glace v. Throwing Co., 239 N.C. 668 , 80 S.E. 2d 759 ; Worsley v. Rendering Co., 239 N.C. 547 , 80 S.E. 2d 467 .

1963Glace v. Throwing Co., 239 N.C. 668 , 80 S.E. 2d 759 ; Worsley v. Rendering Co., 239 N.C. 547 , 80 S.E. 2d 467 .

1963Glace v. Throwing Co., 239 N.C. 668 , 80 S.E. 2d 759 ; Worsley v. Rendering Co., 239 N.C. 547 , 80 S.E. 2d 467 .

1963Glace v. Throwing Co., 239 N.C. 668 , 80 S.E. 2d 759 ; Worsley v. Rendering Co., 239 N.C. 547 , 80 S.E. 2d 467 .

1961Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N.C. 107 , 108 S.E. 389 ; Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N.C. 655 , 163 S.E. 758 ; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 ; Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607 , 14 S.E. 2d 648 ; Bd. of Education v. Deitrick, 221 N.C. 38 , 18 S.E. 2d 704 ; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174 , 22 S.E. 2d 270 ; Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228 , 22 S.E. 2d 555 ; Horton v. Perry, 229 N.C. 319 , 49 S.E. 2d 734 ; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254 , 77 S.E. 2d 659 .

1961Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N.C. 107 , 108 S.E. 389 ; Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N.C. 655 , 163 S.E. 758 ; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 ; Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607 , 14 S.E. 2d 648 ; Bd. of Education v. Deitrick, 221 N.C. 38 , 18 S.E. 2d 704 ; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174 , 22 S.E. 2d 270 ; Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228 , 22 S.E. 2d 555 ; Horton v. Perry, 229 N.C. 319 , 49 S.E. 2d 734 ; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254 , 77 S.E. 2d 659 .

1961Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N.C. 107 , 108 S.E. 389 ; Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N.C. 655 , 163 S.E. 758 ; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 ; Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607 , 14 S.E. 2d 648 ; Bd. of Education v. Deitrick, 221 N.C. 38 , 18 S.E. 2d 704 ; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174 , 22 S.E. 2d 270 ; Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228 , 22 S.E. 2d 555 ; Horton v. Perry, 229 N.C. 319 , 49 S.E. 2d 734 ; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254 , 77 S.E. 2d 659 .

1961Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N.C. 107 , 108 S.E. 389 ; Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N.C. 655 , 163 S.E. 758 ; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 ; Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607 , 14 S.E. 2d 648 ; Bd. of Education v. Deitrick, 221 N.C. 38 , 18 S.E. 2d 704 ; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174 , 22 S.E. 2d 270 ; Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228 , 22 S.E. 2d 555 ; Horton v. Perry, 229 N.C. 319 , 49 S.E. 2d 734 ; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254 , 77 S.E. 2d 659 .

1961Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N.C. 107 , 108 S.E. 389 ; Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N.C. 655 , 163 S.E. 758 ; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 ; Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607 , 14 S.E. 2d 648 ; Bd. of Education v. Deitrick, 221 N.C. 38 , 18 S.E. 2d 704 ; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174 , 22 S.E. 2d 270 ; Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228 , 22 S.E. 2d 555 ; Horton v. Perry, 229 N.C. 319 , 49 S.E. 2d 734 ; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254 , 77 S.E. 2d 659 .

1961Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N.C. 107 , 108 S.E. 389 ; Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N.C. 655 , 163 S.E. 758 ; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 ; Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607 , 14 S.E. 2d 648 ; Bd. of Education v. Deitrick, 221 N.C. 38 , 18 S.E. 2d 704 ; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174 , 22 S.E. 2d 270 ; Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228 , 22 S.E. 2d 555 ; Horton v. Perry, 229 N.C. 319 , 49 S.E. 2d 734 ; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254 , 77 S.E. 2d 659 .

1961Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N.C. 107 , 108 S.E. 389 ; Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N.C. 655 , 163 S.E. 758 ; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 ; Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607 , 14 S.E. 2d 648 ; Bd. of Education v. Deitrick, 221 N.C. 38 , 18 S.E. 2d 704 ; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174 , 22 S.E. 2d 270 ; Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228 , 22 S.E. 2d 555 ; Horton v. Perry, 229 N.C. 319 , 49 S.E. 2d 734 ; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254 , 77 S.E. 2d 659 .

1961Rose v. Warehouse Co., 182 N.C. 107 , 108 S.E. 389 ; Hoover v. Indemnity Co., 202 N.C. 655 , 163 S.E. 758 ; Montgomery v. Blades, 217 N.C. 654 , 9 S.E. 2d 397 ; Bost v. Metcalfe, 219 N.C. 607 , 14 S.E. 2d 648 ; Bd. of Education v. Deitrick, 221 N.C. 38 , 18 S.E. 2d 704 ; Beam v. Wright, 222 N.C. 174 , 22 S.E. 2d 270 ; Schnepp v. Richardson, 222 N.C. 228 , 22 S.E. 2d 555 ; Horton v. Perry, 229 N.C. 319 , 49 S.E. 2d 734 ; Gaither Corp. v. Skinner, 238 N.C. 254 , 77 S.E. 2d 659 .