174 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 29 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. Larrimoregreen2 sentences2024“In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.” State v. Jones, 347 N.C. 193, 207 , 491 S.E.2d 641, 649 (1997) (quoting State v. Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119, 155 , 456 S.E.2d 789, 808 (1995)). “[A] trial court generally is not impermissibly expressing an opinion when it makes ordinary rulings during the course of the trial.” State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 330, 355 , 595 S.E.2d 124, 140 (2004) (citation omitted). 2024“In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.” State v. Jones, 347 N.C. 193, 207 , 491 S.E.2d 641, 649 (1997) (quoting State v. Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119, 155 , 456 S.E.2d 789, 808 (1995)). “[A] trial court generally is not impermissibly expressing an opinion when it makes ordinary rulings during the course of the trial.” State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 330, 355 , 595 S.E.2d 124, 140 (2004) (citation omitted). | 24 | 32 |
Illinois v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2018In the context of third-party information, however, the totality of the circumstances test requires that the nature of the third-party information "be such that a reasonably discreet and prudent person would rely upon [it.]" State v. Arrington , 311 N.C. 633 , 636, 319 S.E.2d 254 , 256-57 (1984) ; see also Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 2332, 76 L.Ed. 2d 527 , 548 (1983) ; State v. Johnson , 143 N.C. 2018In the context of third-party information, however, the totality of the circumstances test requires that the nature of the third-party information "be such that a reasonably discreet and prudent person would rely upon [it.]" State v. Arrington , 311 N.C. 633 , 636, 319 S.E.2d 254 , 256-57 (1984) ; see also Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213 , 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 2332, 76 L.Ed. 2d 527 , 548 (1983) ; State v. Johnson , 143 N.C. | 12 | 26 |
State v. Arringtongreen2 sentences2021See State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 643 , 319 S.E.2d 254, 260-61 (1984). ¶9 The totality of the circumstances test is used to determine whether probable cause exists. 2021See State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633, 643 , 319 S.E.2d 254, 260-61 (1984). ¶9 The totality of the circumstances test is used to determine whether probable cause exists. | 10 | 19 |
State v. Bentersgreen2 sentences2022After careful review, we agree with the State. ¶ 41 “The common-sense, practical question of whether probable cause exists must be determined by applying a totality of the circumstances test.” State v. Benters, 367 N.C. 660, 664 , 766 S.E.2d 593, 597 (2014) (citation omitted). 2022After careful review, we agree with the State. ¶ 41 “The common-sense, practical question of whether probable cause exists must be determined by applying a totality of the circumstances test.” State v. Benters, 367 N.C. 660, 664 , 766 S.E.2d 593, 597 (2014) (citation omitted). | 6 | 8 |
State v. Kincaidgreen2 sentences2018In State v. Kincaid, we recognized that “subject to a totality of the circumstances test, that once an officer returns the license and registration, the stop is over and the person is free to leave.” 147 N.C. 2018In State v. Kincaid , we recognized that "subject to a totality of the circumstances test, that once an officer returns the license and registration, the stop is over and the person is free to leave." 147 N.C. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Beamgreen2 sentences2016State v. Benters , 367 N.C. 660 , 665, 766 S.E.2d 593 , 598 (2014). "[U]nder the totality of the circumstances test, a reviewing court must determine 'whether the evidence as a whole provides a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists.' " Sinapi , 359 N.C. at 398 , 610 S.E.2d at 365 (quoting State v. Beam , 325 N.C. 217 , 221, 381 S.E.2d 327 , 329 (1989) ). 2016State v. Benters , 367 N.C. 660 , 665, 766 S.E.2d 593 , 598 (2014). "[U]nder the totality of the circumstances test, a reviewing court must determine 'whether the evidence as a whole provides a substantial basis for concluding that probable cause exists.' " Sinapi , 359 N.C. at 398 , 610 S.E.2d at 365 (quoting State v. Beam , 325 N.C. 217 , 221, 381 S.E.2d 327 , 329 (1989) ). | 4 | 6 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2024“In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.” State v. Jones, 347 N.C. 193, 207 , 491 S.E.2d 641, 649 (1997) (quoting State v. Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119, 155 , 456 S.E.2d 789, 808 (1995)). “[A] trial court generally is not impermissibly expressing an opinion when it makes ordinary rulings during the course of the trial.” State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 330, 355 , 595 S.E.2d 124, 140 (2004) (citation omitted). 2024“In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.” State v. Jones, 347 N.C. 193, 207 , 491 S.E.2d 641, 649 (1997) (quoting State v. Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119, 155 , 456 S.E.2d 789, 808 (1995)). “[A] trial court generally is not impermissibly expressing an opinion when it makes ordinary rulings during the course of the trial.” State v. Jones, 358 N.C. 330, 355 , 595 S.E.2d 124, 140 (2004) (citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Illinois v. Wardlowgreen2 sentences2021See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124 , 145 L. 2021See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124 , 145 L. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Anthonygreen2 sentences2020State v. Anthony, 354 N.C. 372, 402 , 555 S.E.2d 557, 578 (2001) (citation omitted).5 A defendant is not entitled to a new trial “if the statement, considered in the light of all the facts and attendant circumstances, is not of such prejudicial nature as could reasonably have 5 Defendant argues that the trial court’s alleged violation of N.C. 2020State v. Anthony, 354 N.C. 372, 402 , 555 S.E.2d 557, 578 (2001) (citation omitted).5 A defendant is not entitled to a new trial “if the statement, considered in the light of all the facts and attendant circumstances, is not of such prejudicial nature as could reasonably have 5 Defendant argues that the trial court’s alleged violation of N.C. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Fleminggreen2 sentences2021“In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.” Id. (internal marks and citation omitted). ¶ 24 Applying these principles to the remarks of the trial court here, and after conducting a thorough review of each alleged instance of improper conduct or hostility on the part of the trial judge, we detect no prejudicial error and reject Defendant's claim of “exceptional hostility.” ¶ 25 Turning first to the interruptions, it is apparent that the trial judge interrupted only in the interests of expediency and 2021“In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.” Id. (internal marks and citation omitted). ¶ 24 Applying these principles to the remarks of the trial court here, and after conducting a thorough review of each alleged instance of improper conduct or hostility on the part of the trial judge, we detect no prejudicial error and reject Defendant's claim of “exceptional hostility.” ¶ 25 Turning first to the interruptions, it is apparent that the trial judge interrupted only in the interests of expediency and | 2 | 5 |
State v. Sinapigreen2 sentences2018See Sinapi , 359 N.C. at 399 , 610 S.E.2d at 365 (determining refuse search resulting in evidence of marijuana provided probable cause for search warrant to issue); see also Arrington , 311 N.C. at 641 , 319 S.E.2d at 259 (specifying that a court reviewing the existence of probable cause to issue a search warrant is to employ the totality of the circumstances test). 2018See Sinapi , 359 N.C. at 399 , 610 S.E.2d at 365 (determining refuse search resulting in evidence of marijuana provided probable cause for search warrant to issue); see also Arrington , 311 N.C. at 641 , 319 S.E.2d at 259 (specifying that a court reviewing the existence of probable cause to issue a search warrant is to employ the totality of the circumstances test). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2010Id. at 314-15 , 585 S.E.2d at 485 (establishing totality of the circumstances as the test under North Carolina Constitution); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 , 76 L. 2010Id. at 314-15 , 585 S.E.2d at 485 (establishing totality of the circumstances as the test under North Carolina Constitution); see also Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 233 , 76 L. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Jamesgreen2 sentences2026See Miller, 363 N.C. at 99; see also State v. James, 81 N.C. 2018See Miller, 363 N.C. at 99 , 678 S.E.2d at 594 ; see also State v. James , 81 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Summeygreen2 sentences2020AUSTIN Opinion of the Court S.E.2d 789, 808 (1995) (citations omitted) (citing Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232 , 333 S.E.2d 245 ); see also State v. Summey, 228 N.C. 2020AUSTIN Opinion of the Court S.E.2d 789, 808 (1995) (citations omitted) (citing Blackstock, 314 N.C. 232 , 333 S.E.2d 245 ); see also State v. Summey, 228 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Neville Andrew Meiklegreen2 sentences2018App. 94, 99 , 555 S.E.2d 294, 298 (2001). 2 See also United States v. Whitney, 391 F. App’x. 277, 280-81 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Meikle, 407 F.3d 670, 673-74 (4th Cir. 2005). 2 STATE V. 2018App. 94, 99 , 555 S.E.2d 294, 298 (2001). 2 See also United States v. Whitney, 391 F. App’x. 277, 280-81 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Meikle, 407 F.3d 670, 673-74 (4th Cir. 2005). 2 STATE V. | 2 | 2 |
| Howes v. Fieldsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Bush v. Veragreen | 2 | 2 |
| Tillman v. Commercial Credit Loans, Inc.green | 2 | 2 |
State v. Blackstockgreen2 sentences2020Mindful of the totality of the circumstances test applicable in this case, Blackstock, 314 N.C. at 236 , 333 S.E.2d at 248 , various portions of the record undercut a conclusion of prejudicial effect. 2020Mindful of the totality of the circumstances test applicable in this case, Blackstock, 314 N.C. at 236 , 333 S.E.2d at 248 , various portions of the record undercut a conclusion of prejudicial effect. | 1 | 6 |
Seath v. Regulations & Permits Administrationgreen2 sentences1984In Gates, the Supreme Court abandoned the two-pronged test established in Aguilar and Spinelli and in its place reaffirmed "the totality of the circumstances analysis that traditionally has informed probable cause determinations." Id. at ____, 103 S.Ct. at 2332 , 76 L.Ed.2d at 548 . 1984The standard for determining probable cause for issuance of a search warrant based on information from informants is “the totality of the circumstances analysis that traditionally has informed probable cause determinations.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 , ---, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2332 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 527, 548 , reh’g denied, --- U.S. ---, 104 S.Ct. 33 , 77 L.Ed. 2d 1453 (1983); State v. Arrington, 311 N.C. 633 , 319 S.E. 2d 254 (1984). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2004State v. Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119 , 155, 456 S.E.2d 789 , 808 (1995). "[U]nless it is apparent that such infraction of the rules might reasonably have had a prejudicial effect on the result of the trial, the error will be considered harmless." Id. (quoting State v. Perry, 231 N.C. 467 , 471, 57 S.E.2d 774 , 777 (1950)). 2004State v. Larrimore, 340 N.C. 119 , 155, 456 S.E.2d 789 , 808 (1995). "[U]nless it is apparent that such infraction of the rules might reasonably have had a prejudicial effect on the result of the trial, the error will be considered harmless." Id. (quoting State v. Perry, 231 N.C. 467 , 471, 57 S.E.2d 774 , 777 (1950)). | 1 | 3 |
Veneri v. Whitegreen2 sentences2001Ed. 2d 124 (1978). ‘Furthermore, it is well recognized that a trial judge has a duty to question a witness in order to clarify his testimony or to elicit overlooked pertinent facts.’ State v. Rogers, 326 N.C. at 220, 341 S.E.2d at 723; see also State v. Jackson, 306 N.C. 642, 651 , 295 S.E.2d 383, 388 (1982). ‘In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.’ [State v.] Larrimore, 340 N.C. [119,] 155, 456 S.E.2d [789,]808 [(1995)]. ‘The trial court has a duty to control the examination of witnesses, both f 1999“The trial court has a duty to control the examination of witnesses, both for the purpose of conserving the trial court’s time and for the purpose of protecting the witness from prolonged, needless, or abusive examination.” State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 299 , 457 S.E.2d 841, 861 , cert. denied, [516] U.S. [994], 133 L. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Whitegreen2 sentences2001Ed. 2d 124 (1978). ‘Furthermore, it is well recognized that a trial judge has a duty to question a witness in order to clarify his testimony or to elicit overlooked pertinent facts.’ State v. Rogers, 326 N.C. at 220, 341 S.E.2d at 723; see also State v. Jackson, 306 N.C. 642, 651 , 295 S.E.2d 383, 388 (1982). ‘In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.’ [State v.] Larrimore, 340 N.C. [119,] 155, 456 S.E.2d [789,]808 [(1995)]. ‘The trial court has a duty to control the examination of witnesses, both f 2001Ed. 2d 124 (1978). ‘Furthermore, it is well recognized that a trial judge has a duty to question a witness in order to clarify his testimony or to elicit overlooked pertinent facts.’ State v. Rogers, 326 N.C. at 220, 341 S.E.2d at 723; see also State v. Jackson, 306 N.C. 642, 651 , 295 S.E.2d 383, 388 (1982). ‘In evaluating whether a judge’s comments cross into the realm of impermissible opinion, a totality of the circumstances test is utilized.’ [State v.] Larrimore, 340 N.C. [119,] 155, 456 S.E.2d [789,]808 [(1995)]. ‘The trial court has a duty to control the examination of witnesses, both f | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gellgreen2 sentences2026State v. Gell, 351 N.C. 192, 207 (2000) (citation omitted). 2000Further, since defendant claims that he was deprived of a fair trial by the judge’s statements, he “has the burden of showing prejudice in order to receive a new trial.” State v. Gell, 351 N.C. 192, 207 , 524 S.E.2d 332, 342 , cert. denied, - U.S. — , 148 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. McCoygreen2 sentences2024The totality of the circumstances test requires a “common-sense decision based on all the circumstances that there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” State v. McCoy, 100 N.C. 2024App. 574, 576 , 397 S.E.2d 355, 357 (1990) (cleaned up). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Butlergreen2 sentences2001In State v. Butler, 331 N.C. 227 , 415 S.E.2d 719 (1992), our Supreme Court upheld a prolonged detention of a defendant to frisk for any weapons under a totality of the circumstances analysis. 2001In State v. Butler, 331 N.C. 227 , 415 S.E.2d 719 (1992), our Supreme Court upheld a prolonged detention of a defendant to frisk for any weapons under a totality of the circumstances analysis. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2019“Whether the use of photographic evidence is more probative than prejudicial and what constitutes an excessive number of photographs in the light of the illustrative value of each is within the trial court’s discretion under a totality of the circumstances analysis.” State v. Clark, 138 N.C. 2019App. 392, 399 , 531 S.E.2d 482, 487 (2000). -5- STATE V. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Holmesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Rawlsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Gray v. Lucas, Warden, Et Al.green | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Earhartgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Chick v. Chickgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Cartergreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Hughesgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Chadwickgreen | 1 | 2 |
| Harris v. Harrisgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Watkinsgreen | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Cortezgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Allengreen | 1 | 2 |
| Matter of Kenyon N.green | 1 | 2 |
| 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. Green
green
2 sentences2017We disagree. *301 "When probable cause is based on an informant's tip a totality of the circumstances test is used to weigh the reliability or unreliability of the informant." State v. Green , 194 N.C. 2012“In cases involving an informant’s tip probable cause is determined by a totality of the circumstances test after balancing the various indicia of reliability and unreliability attendant to the informant’s tip.” State v. Green, 194 N.C. | 4 | 2012–2017 |
Missouri v. McNeely
green
2 sentences2021McNeely, 569 U.S. at 156 , 133 S. Ct. at 1563 , 185 L. 2021McNeely, 569 U.S. at 156 , 133 S. Ct. at 1563 , 185 L. | 3 | 2021–2021 |
Neil v. Biggers
green
2 sentences2019Using a totality of the circumstances test, the central question is "whether ... the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive." Neil v. Biggers , 409 U.S. 188 , 199, 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). 2019Using a totality of the circumstances test, the central question is "whether ... the identification was reliable even though the confrontation procedure was suggestive." Neil v. Biggers , 409 U.S. 188 , 199, 93 S.Ct. 375 , 34 L.Ed.2d 401 (1972). | 3 | 1978–2019 |
State v. Martin
green
2 sentences2022State v. Martin, 228 N.C. 2022State v. Martin, 228 N.C. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. McCullers
green
2 sentences2020The Court held that the evidence showed that the defendant had already admitted to traveling to Raleigh with others and robbing a victim and hitting the victim with a bat before the officer made the above statements, The Court ultimately concluded that “[u]nder the totality of the circumstances test, the isolated statements [above] do not support defendant’s contention that his statements were made involuntarily out of fear or hope[.]” Id. at 28 , 460 S.E.2d at 168 . 2020The Court held that the evidence showed that the defendant had already admitted to traveling to Raleigh with others and robbing a victim and hitting the victim with a bat before the officer made the above statements, The Court ultimately concluded that “[u]nder the totality of the circumstances test, the isolated statements [above] do not support defendant’s contention that his statements were made involuntarily out of fear or hope[.]” Id. at 28 , 460 S.E.2d at 168 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Grady v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences2019TUCKER BERGER, J., dissenting Reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is intended to be a totality of the circumstances inquiry that includes consideration of “the nature and purpose of the search and the extent to which the search intrudes upon reasonable privacy expectations.” Id. 2019We note that the balancing test articulated in Vernonia , 515 U.S. at 652 -53 , 115 S.Ct. 2386 ("[W]hether a particular search meets the reasonableness standard " 'is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests." ' " (quoting Skinner , 489 U.S. at 619 , 109 S.Ct. 1402 )), is not unique to special needs cases, but rather is the same general Fourth Amendment balancing test that weighs " 'the promotion of legitimate governmental interests' against 'the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an indi | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Coley green | 2 | 2012–2017 |
| State v. McKinney green | 2 | 2012–2017 |
| State v. Green neutral | 2 | 2012–2017 |
| State v. Icard green | 2 | 2010–2016 |
| State v. Rushdan green | 2 | 2007–2014 |
| State v. Briggs green | 2 | 2001–2008 |
| State v. Holden green | 2 | 1995–2004 |
| Kansas v. Glover green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Walston neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| In re D.A.C. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Manson v. Brathwaite green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Harrington green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Fields green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Allman green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Garcia green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Sutton green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Overocker green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Olivetti Corp. v. Ames Business Systems, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Spence neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.