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.
32 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2016 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. McHonegreen2 sentences2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] 2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] | 6 | 6 |
State v. Scottgreen2 sentences2003On the contrary, Wylene’s statements regarding her fear of defendant fall under Rule 803(3), since “[i]t is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” Scott, 343 N.C. at 335 , 471 S.E.2d at 618 (holding that testimony of several witnesses regarding conversations with the victim “related directly to [the victim’s] fear of [the] defendant” and thus were “properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception”); see also 2003On the contrary, Wylene’s statements regarding her fear of defendant fall under Rule 803(3), since “[i]t is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” Scott, 343 N.C. at 335 , 471 S.E.2d at 618 (holding that testimony of several witnesses regarding conversations with the victim “related directly to [the victim’s] fear of [the] defendant” and thus were “properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception”); see also | 5 | 7 |
State v. Lynchgreen2 sentences2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] 2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] | 4 | 6 |
State v. Stagergreen2 sentences1996We held the tape in Stager admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule because the statement “[bore] directly on [the victim’s] relationship with the defendant at about the time she was alleged to have killed him.” Id. at 314 , 406 S.E.2d at 897 . 1996We held the tape in Stager admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule because the statement “[bore] directly on [the victim’s] relationship with the defendant at about the time she was alleged to have killed him.” Id. at 314 , 406 S.E.2d at 897 . | 2 | 4 |
State v. Faucettegreen2 sentences1990Under recent decisions of this Court, State v. Faucette, 326 N.C. 676 , 392 S.E.2d 71 (1990); Cummings, 326 N.C. 298 , 389 S.E.2d 66 ; State v. Alston, 307 N.C. 321 , 298 S.E.2d 631 (1983), these hearsay statements are admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: ... (3) Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition — A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, ment 1990Under recent decisions of this Court, State v. Faucette, 326 N.C. 676 , 392 S.E.2d 71 (1990); Cummings, 326 N.C. 298 , 389 S.E.2d 66 ; State v. Alston, 307 N.C. 321 , 298 S.E.2d 631 (1983), these hearsay statements are admissible under the state-of-mind exception to the hearsay rule: The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: ... (3) Then Existing Mental, Emotional, or Physical Condition — A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, ment | 2 | 4 |
State v. Crawfordgreen2 sentences1997“It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” State v. Scott, 343 N.C. 313, 335 , 471 S.E.2d 605, 618 (1996); see State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65, 76 , 472 S.E.2d 920, 927 (1996) (conversations relating directly to victim’s fear of defendant admissible under the state-of-mind exception to show the nature of *117 victim’s relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant’s behavior on victim’s state of mind prior 1997“It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” State v. Scott, 343 N.C. 313, 335 , 471 S.E.2d 605, 618 (1996); see State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65, 76 , 472 S.E.2d 920, 927 (1996) (conversations relating directly to victim’s fear of defendant admissible under the state-of-mind exception to show the nature of *117 victim’s relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant’s behavior on victim’s state of mind prior | 2 | 3 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2004The Court admitted the testimony under the state of mind exception found in Rule 803(3), which applies to “statements made by the victim which may indicate the victim’s mental condition by showing the victim’s fears, feelings, impressions or experiences.” Id., 332 N.C. at 535, 422 S.E.2d at 725 . 2004The Court admitted the testimony under the state of mind exception found in Rule 803(3), which applies to “statements made by the victim which may indicate the victim’s mental condition by showing the victim’s fears, feelings, impressions or experiences.” Id., 332 N.C. at 535, 422 S.E.2d at 725 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Holdergreen2 sentences2000See State v. Murillo , 349 N.C. 573, 587 , 509 S.E.2d 752, 759 (1998), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 838 , 120 S.Ct. 103 , 145 L.Ed.2d 87 (1999) (holding that victim's hearsay statements indicating that she intended to end the marriage reflected her state of mind and were admissible under Rule 803(3)); see also State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462, 485 , 418 S.E.2d 197, 210 (1992) (where the Court upheld admitted hearsay statements under the state of mind exception since they "tended to show the nature of the victim's relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant's behavior on the victim's state 2000See State v. Murillo , 349 N.C. 573, 587 , 509 S.E.2d 752, 759 (1998), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 838 , 120 S.Ct. 103 , 145 L.Ed.2d 87 (1999) (holding that victim's hearsay statements indicating that she intended to end the marriage reflected her state of mind and were admissible under Rule 803(3)); see also State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462, 485 , 418 S.E.2d 197, 210 (1992) (where the Court upheld admitted hearsay statements under the state of mind exception since they "tended to show the nature of the victim's relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant's behavior on the victim's state | 2 | 3 |
State v. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] 2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] | 1 | 4 |
State v. Alstongreen2 sentences2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] 2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] | 1 | 3 |
Gosch v. Texasgreen2 sentences2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] 1997“It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” State v. Scott, 343 N.C. 313, 335 , 471 S.E.2d 605, 618 (1996); see State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65, 76 , 472 S.E.2d 920, 927 (1996) (conversations relating directly to victim’s fear of defendant admissible under the state-of-mind exception to show the nature of *117 victim’s relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant’s behavior on victim’s state of mind prior | 1 | 2 |
State v. Maynardgreen2 sentences1996Under the state of mind exception, when intent is directly in issue, a declarant’s statements “relative to his then existing intention are admitted without question.” 2 Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis and Broun on North Carolina Evidence § 218, at 92 (4th ed. 1993); see State v. Palmer, 334 N.C. 104 , 431 S.E.2d 172 (1993) (victim’s statement that she would not give defendant money admissible to show motive to kill her); Maynard, 311 N.C. 1 , 316 S.E.2d 197 (in this pre-Rules case, murder victim’s statement that he would testify against defendant properly admitted as evidence of defendant’s motive). 1996Under the state of mind exception, when intent is directly in issue, a declarant’s statements “relative to his then existing intention are admitted without question.” 2 Kenneth S. Broun, Brandis and Broun on North Carolina Evidence § 218, at 92 (4th ed. 1993); see State v. Palmer, 334 N.C. 104 , 431 S.E.2d 172 (1993) (victim’s statement that she would not give defendant money admissible to show motive to kill her); Maynard, 311 N.C. 1 , 316 S.E.2d 197 (in this pre-Rules case, murder victim’s statement that he would testify against defendant properly admitted as evidence of defendant’s motive). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Alstongreen2 sentences1995See State v. Alston, 307 N.C. 321 , 298 S.E.2d 631 (1983). *231 After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the conversations between the victim and the five witnesses related directly to the victim’s fear of defendant and that the victim’s statements were properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule to show the nature of the victim’s relationship with the defendant and the impact of defendant’s behavior on the victim’s state of mind prior to her murder. 1995See State v. Alston, 307 N.C. 321 , 298 S.E.2d 631 (1983). *231 After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the conversations between the victim and the five witnesses related directly to the victim’s fear of defendant and that the victim’s statements were properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule to show the nature of the victim’s relationship with the defendant and the impact of defendant’s behavior on the victim’s state of mind prior to her murder. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Glenngreen2 sentences2003On the contrary, Wylene’s statements regarding her fear of defendant fall under Rule 803(3), since “[i]t is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” Scott, 343 N.C. at 335 , 471 S.E.2d at 618 (holding that testimony of several witnesses regarding conversations with the victim “related directly to [the victim’s] fear of [the] defendant” and thus were “properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception”); see also 2003On the contrary, Wylene’s statements regarding her fear of defendant fall under Rule 803(3), since “[i]t is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim’s statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim’s relationship to the defendant.” Scott, 343 N.C. at 335 , 471 S.E.2d at 618 (holding that testimony of several witnesses regarding conversations with the victim “related directly to [the victim’s] fear of [the] defendant” and thus were “properly admitted pursuant to the state of mind exception”); see also | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Miller, 344 N.C. 658 , 477 S.E.2d 915 (1996). *25 In the present case, the victim’s statements were relevant to show that the relationship between defendant and Golden was not a good one, and to show that defendant had a motive for the killing, i.e., revenge for poisoning Elic Scercy and stealing his money. 2002See, e.g., State v. Miller, 344 N.C. 658 , 477 S.E.2d 915 (1996). *25 In the present case, the victim’s statements were relevant to show that the relationship between defendant and Golden was not a good one, and to show that defendant had a motive for the killing, i.e., revenge for poisoning Elic Scercy and stealing his money. | 1 | 1 |
Robbins v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2000See State v. Murillo , 349 N.C. 573, 587 , 509 S.E.2d 752, 759 (1998), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 838 , 120 S.Ct. 103 , 145 L.Ed.2d 87 (1999) (holding that victim's hearsay statements indicating that she intended to end the marriage reflected her state of mind and were admissible under Rule 803(3)); see also State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462, 485 , 418 S.E.2d 197, 210 (1992) (where the Court upheld admitted hearsay statements under the state of mind exception since they "tended to show the nature of the victim's relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant's behavior on the victim's state | 1 | 1 |
Murillo v. North Carolinagreen1 sentence2000See State v. Murillo , 349 N.C. 573, 587 , 509 S.E.2d 752, 759 (1998), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 838 , 120 S.Ct. 103 , 145 L.Ed.2d 87 (1999) (holding that victim's hearsay statements indicating that she intended to end the marriage reflected her state of mind and were admissible under Rule 803(3)); see also State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462, 485 , 418 S.E.2d 197, 210 (1992) (where the Court upheld admitted hearsay statements under the state of mind exception since they "tended to show the nature of the victim's relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant's behavior on the victim's state | 1 | 1 |
| Muniz-Herrera v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murillogreen2 sentences2000See State v. Murillo , 349 N.C. 573, 587 , 509 S.E.2d 752, 759 (1998), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 838 , 120 S.Ct. 103 , 145 L.Ed.2d 87 (1999) (holding that victim's hearsay statements indicating that she intended to end the marriage reflected her state of mind and were admissible under Rule 803(3)); see also State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462, 485 , 418 S.E.2d 197, 210 (1992) (where the Court upheld admitted hearsay statements under the state of mind exception since they "tended to show the nature of the victim's relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant's behavior on the victim's state 2000See State v. Murillo , 349 N.C. 573, 587 , 509 S.E.2d 752, 759 (1998), cert. denied , 528 U.S. 838 , 120 S.Ct. 103 , 145 L.Ed.2d 87 (1999) (holding that victim's hearsay statements indicating that she intended to end the marriage reflected her state of mind and were admissible under Rule 803(3)); see also State v. Holder, 331 N.C. 462, 485 , 418 S.E.2d 197, 210 (1992) (where the Court upheld admitted hearsay statements under the state of mind exception since they "tended to show the nature of the victim's relationship with defendant and the impact of defendant's behavior on the victim's state | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. McLemoregreen2 sentences2000A victim’s state of mind also is relevant “if it relates directly to circumstances giving rise to a potential confrontation with the defendant.” State v. McLemore, 343 N.C. 240, 246 , 470 S.E.2d 2, 5 (1996) (citation omitted). 2000A victim’s state of mind also is relevant “if it relates directly to circumstances giving rise to a potential confrontation with the defendant.” State v. McLemore, 343 N.C. 240, 246 , 470 S.E.2d 2, 5 (1996) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Braswellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Palmergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Huntergreen | 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. Corpening
green
2 sentences2002State v. Corpening, 129 N.C. 2000State v. Corpening, 129 N.C.App. 60, 66 , 497 S.E.2d 303, 308 , disc. *637 review denied, 348 N.C. 503 , 510 S.E.2d 659 (1998)( quoting State v. Walker, 332 N.C. 520, 535 , 422 S.E.2d 716, 725 (1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 919 , 113 S.Ct. 2364 , 124 L.Ed.2d 271 (1993)). | 2 | 2000–2002 |
Campbell v. Connecticut
green
2 sentences2000State v. Corpening, 129 N.C.App. 60, 66 , 497 S.E.2d 303, 308 , disc. *637 review denied, 348 N.C. 503 , 510 S.E.2d 659 (1998)( quoting State v. Walker, 332 N.C. 520, 535 , 422 S.E.2d 716, 725 (1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 919 , 113 S.Ct. 2364 , 124 L.Ed.2d 271 (1993)). 1998State v. Walker, 332 N.C. 520, 535 , 422 S.E.2d 716, 725 (1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 919 , 124 L. | 2 | 1998–2000 |
Johnson v. Florida
green
2 sentences2000State v. Corpening, 129 N.C.App. 60, 66 , 497 S.E.2d 303, 308 , disc. *637 review denied, 348 N.C. 503 , 510 S.E.2d 659 (1998)( quoting State v. Walker, 332 N.C. 520, 535 , 422 S.E.2d 716, 725 (1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 919 , 113 S.Ct. 2364 , 124 L.Ed.2d 271 (1993)). 1998State v. Walker, 332 N.C. 520, 535 , 422 S.E.2d 716, 725 (1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 919 , 124 L. | 2 | 1998–2000 |
State v. Hardy
green
2 sentences1998Defendant relies on State v. Hardy, 339 N.C. 207 , 451 S.E.2d 600 (1994), for the proposition that this Court has "receded" from these well-established principles regarding the state of mind exception. 1998Defendant relies on State v. Hardy, 339 N.C. 207 , 451 S.E.2d 600 (1994), for the proposition that this Court has "receded" from these well-established principles regarding the state of mind exception. | 2 | 1997–1998 |
Jacobs v. United States
green
1 sentence2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Crowe v. Georgia
green
1 sentence2016"It is well established in North Carolina that a murder victim's statements falling within the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule are highly relevant to show the status of the victim's relationship to the defendant." State v. Alston, 341 N.C. 198 , 230, 461 S.E.2d 687 , 704 (1995), cert. denied, [ 516 U.S. 1148 , 116 S.Ct. 1021 ], 134 L.Ed.2d 100 (1996) ; see State v. McHone, 334 N.C. 627 , 637, 435 S.E.2d 296 , 301-02 (1993) (state of mind relevant to show a stormy relationship between the victim and the defendant prior to the murder), cert. denied, [ 511 U.S. 1046 , 114 S.Ct. 1577 ] | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Ford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2002See, e.g., State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65 , 472 S.E.2d 920 (1996); State v. Burke, 343 N.C. 129 , 469 S.E.2d 901 , cert denied, 519 U.S. 1013 , 136 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Tucker v. Department of Education
green
1 sentence2002See, e.g., State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65 , 472 S.E.2d 920 (1996); State v. Burke, 343 N.C. 129 , 469 S.E.2d 901 , cert denied, 519 U.S. 1013 , 136 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Burke
green
2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65 , 472 S.E.2d 920 (1996); State v. Burke, 343 N.C. 129 , 469 S.E.2d 901 , cert denied, 519 U.S. 1013 , 136 L. 2002See, e.g., State v. Crawford, 344 N.C. 65 , 472 S.E.2d 920 (1996); State v. Burke, 343 N.C. 129 , 469 S.E.2d 901 , cert denied, 519 U.S. 1013 , 136 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Corpening
green
2 sentences2000State v. Corpening, 129 N.C.App. 60, 66 , 497 S.E.2d 303, 308 , disc. *637 review denied, 348 N.C. 503 , 510 S.E.2d 659 (1998)( quoting State v. Walker, 332 N.C. 520, 535 , 422 S.E.2d 716, 725 (1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 919 , 113 S.Ct. 2364 , 124 L.Ed.2d 271 (1993)). 2000State v. Corpening, 129 N.C.App. 60, 66 , 497 S.E.2d 303, 308 , disc. *637 review denied, 348 N.C. 503 , 510 S.E.2d 659 (1998)( quoting State v. Walker, 332 N.C. 520, 535 , 422 S.E.2d 716, 725 (1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 919 , 113 S.Ct. 2364 , 124 L.Ed.2d 271 (1993)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Wilson v. Seafarers International Union
neutral
1 sentence2000State v. Corpening, 129 N.C.App. 60, 66 , 497 S.E.2d 303, 308 , disc. *637 review denied, 348 N.C. 503 , 510 S.E.2d 659 (1998)( quoting State v. Walker, 332 N.C. 520, 535 , 422 S.E.2d 716, 725 (1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 919 , 113 S.Ct. 2364 , 124 L.Ed.2d 271 (1993)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. King neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Mixion neutral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Mixion green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Meekins green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| State v. Miller neutral | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.