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.
24 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1903–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Word v. Jones Ex Rel. Mooregreen2 sentences2015P. 61; see also Word v. Jones, -15- 350 N.C. 557, 565 , 516 S.E.2d 144, 148 (1999) (holding that “erroneous jury instructions are not grounds for granting a new trial unless the error affected a substantial right”). 2015P. 61; see also Word v. Jones, -15- 350 N.C. 557, 565 , 516 S.E.2d 144, 148 (1999) (holding that “erroneous jury instructions are not grounds for granting a new trial unless the error affected a substantial right”). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Russellgreen2 sentences2008“Error committed at trial infringing upon one’s constitutional rights is presumed to be prejudicial and entitles [defendant] to a new trial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Russell, 92 N.C. 2003“Error committed at trial infringing upon one’s constitutional rights is presumed to be prejudicial and entitles him to a new trial unless the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Russell, 92 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Autrygreen2 sentences2023RICHARDSON Earls, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 1223(e), and he was required to disclose his knowledge of the prosecution and the Richardson family either to the parties in this case or a neutral arbiter under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “[E]rror committed at trial which infringes upon [a] defendant’s constitutional rights is presumed to be prejudicial and entitles him to a new trial unless the error in question is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392 , 399–400 (1988). 2023RICHARDSON Earls, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part 1223(e), and he was required to disclose his knowledge of the prosecution and the Richardson family either to the parties in this case or a neutral arbiter under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “[E]rror committed at trial which infringes upon [a] defendant’s constitutional rights is presumed to be prejudicial and entitles him to a new trial unless the error in question is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Autry, 321 N.C. 392 , 399–400 (1988). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Alstongreen2 sentences2009Alston, 307 N.C. at 339-40 , 298 S.E.2d at 644 . 2009Alston, 307 N.C. at 339-40 , 298 S.E.2d at 644 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Wilkersongreen2 sentences2026See State v. Wilkerson, 363 N.C. 382, 415 , 683 S.E.2d 174, 194 (2009) (citations omitted). 2026See State v. Wilkerson, 363 N.C. 382, 415 , 683 S.E.2d 174, 194 (2009) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cookgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Cook , 193 N.C.App. 179 , 185, 666 S.E.2d 795 , 799 (2008) (citation omitted). 2016See State v. Cook , 193 N.C.App. 179 , 185, 666 S.E.2d 795 , 799 (2008) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Soyarsgreen2 sentences2008App. 639, 644 , 376 S.E.2d 458, 461 (1989). “[T]he question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Soyars, 332 N.C. 47, 58 , 418 S.E.2d 480, 487 (1992). 2008App. 639, 644 , 376 S.E.2d 458, 461 (1989). “[T]he question is whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Soyars, 332 N.C. 47, 58 , 418 S.E.2d 480, 487 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Milton L. McCaskillgreen1 sentence1990Even though the admission of the statements constitutes trial error, this error will not mandate a new trial unless the error constitutes “plain error.” The “plain error” rule is “always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said that the claimed error is a ‘fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done[.]’ ” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983), quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 45 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Odomgreen2 sentences1990Even though the admission of the statements constitutes trial error, this error will not mandate a new trial unless the error constitutes “plain error.” The “plain error” rule is “always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said that the claimed error is a ‘fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done[.]’ ” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983), quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 45 1990Even though the admission of the statements constitutes trial error, this error will not mandate a new trial unless the error constitutes “plain error.” The “plain error” rule is “always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said that the claimed error is a ‘fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done[.]’ ” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983), quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 45 | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 , 98 S.Ct. 458 , 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 , 92 S.Ct. 2174 , 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). 1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 , 98 S.Ct. 458 , 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 , 92 S.Ct. 2174 , 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). | 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. Brown
green
2 sentences1997Because the error is of constitutional dimensions it is “presumed to be prejudicial” and entitles the defendant “to a new trial unless the error committed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 164 , 293 S.E.2d 569, 578 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080 , 74 L. 1997Because the error is of constitutional dimensions it is “presumed to be prejudicial” and entitles the defendant “to a new trial unless the error committed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 164 , 293 S.E.2d 569, 578 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080 , 74 L. | 5 | 1988–1997 |
In re Davis
green
2 sentences1997Because the error is of constitutional dimensions it is “presumed to be prejudicial” and entitles the defendant “to a new trial unless the error committed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 164 , 293 S.E.2d 569, 578 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080 , 74 L. 1992“Error committed at trial infringing, upon a defendant’s constitutional rights is presumed to be prejudicial and entitles him to a new trial unless the error committed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 164 , 293 S.E.2d 569, 578 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080 , 74 L. | 3 | 1992–1997 |
Otey v. Nebraska
green
2 sentences1997Because the error is of constitutional dimensions it is “presumed to be prejudicial” and entitles the defendant “to a new trial unless the error committed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 164 , 293 S.E.2d 569, 578 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080 , 74 L. 1992“Error committed at trial infringing, upon a defendant’s constitutional rights is presumed to be prejudicial and entitles him to a new trial unless the error committed was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 164 , 293 S.E.2d 569, 578 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080 , 74 L. | 3 | 1992–1997 |
Chapman v. California
red
2 sentences1992N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b) (1988); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 164 , 293 S.E.2d 569, 578 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080 , 103 S.Ct. 503 , 74 L.Ed.2d 642 (1982). 1992N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(b) (1988); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); State v. Brown, 306 N.C. 151, 164 , 293 S.E.2d 569, 578 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1080 , 103 S.Ct. 503 , 74 L.Ed.2d 642 (1982). | 2 | 1982–1992 |
Tucker v. . Satterthwaite
neutral
2 sentences1955In the case of Tucker v. Satter-thwaite, 120 N.C. 118 , 27 S.E. 45, 46 , it does not appear that an exception was entered to the issues submitted; nevertheless, this Court said: "We are not inadvertent to the long line of decisions laying down the rule that the refusal of the court to submit an issue tendered by either party cannot be reviewed by this court unless exception is taken in apt time; nor do we wish to be understood as reversing or modifying it. 1955In the case of Tucker v. Satter-thwaite, 120 N.C. 118 , 27 S.E. 45, 46 , it does not appear that an exception was entered to the issues submitted; nevertheless, this Court said: "We are not inadvertent to the long line of decisions laying down the rule that the refusal of the court to submit an issue tendered by either party cannot be reviewed by this court unless exception is taken in apt time; nor do we wish to be understood as reversing or modifying it. | 2 | 1903–1955 |
State v. Mendoza
green
1 sentence2019App. ----, ----, 794 S.E.2d 828 , 834 (2016). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Dean v. United States
green
1 sentence1990Even though the admission of the statements constitutes trial error, this error will not mandate a new trial unless the error constitutes “plain error.” The “plain error” rule is “always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said that the claimed error is a ‘fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done[.]’ ” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983), quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 45 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
McCoy v. Bordenkircher
green
1 sentence1990Even though the admission of the statements constitutes trial error, this error will not mandate a new trial unless the error constitutes “plain error.” The “plain error” rule is “always to be applied cautiously and only in the exceptional case where, after reviewing the entire record, it can be said that the claimed error is a ‘fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done[.]’ ” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983), quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 45 | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Milton v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 , 98 S.Ct. 458 , 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 , 92 S.Ct. 2174 , 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). 1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 , 98 S.Ct. 458 , 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 , 92 S.Ct. 2174 , 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Schneble v. Florida
green
2 sentences1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 , 98 S.Ct. 458 , 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 , 92 S.Ct. 2174 , 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). 1982G.S. 15A-1443(b); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); see Moore v. Illinois, 434 U.S. 220 , 98 S.Ct. 458 , 54 L.Ed.2d 424 (1977); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U.S. 371 , 92 S.Ct. 2174 , 33 L.Ed.2d 1 (1972); Schneble v. Florida, 405 U.S. 427 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 , 31 L.Ed.2d 340 (1972). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Turner
green
2 sentences1973State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225 , 150 S.E. 2d 406 ; State v. Rainey, 236 N.C. 738 , 74 S.E. 2d 39 . 1973State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225 , 150 S.E. 2d 406 ; State v. Rainey, 236 N.C. 738 , 74 S.E. 2d 39 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
State v. Rainey
green
2 sentences1973State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225 , 150 S.E. 2d 406 ; State v. Rainey, 236 N.C. 738 , 74 S.E. 2d 39 . 1973State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225 , 150 S.E. 2d 406 ; State v. Rainey, 236 N.C. 738 , 74 S.E. 2d 39 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Jenkins v. North Carolina Ore Dressing Co.
green
1 sentence1905Reade, J., in Jenkins v. Ore Dressing Co., 65 N. C., 563 , says: “It is difficult to lay down tbe line, further than to say, that it must ordinarily be left to the discretion of the judge who tries the cause; and this court will not review his discretion unless it is apparent that the impropriety of counsel was gross, and well calculated to prejudice the jury.” It is settled by this court that unless exception is taken, either at the time the language is usted, or by request to the court to instruct the jury that they must disregard the objectionable language it cannot be assigned as error. | 1 | 1905–1905 |
State v. . Tyson
green
1 sentence1905The cases are collected and discussed in State v. Tyson, 133 N. C., 692 . | 1 | 1905–1905 |
Pearce v. Fisher.
neutral
2 sentences1903As said by Mr. Justice Douglas in Tucker v. Satterthwaite, 120 N. C., 118 , “We are not inadvertent to the long line of decisions laying down the rule that the refusal of the Court to submit an issue tendered by either party cannot be reviewed by this Court unless exception is taken in apt time; nor do we wish to be understood as reversing* or modifying it. * * * What we now say is that section 395 of the Code is mandatory, binding equally upon the Court and upon counsel; that it is the duty of the Judge, either of his own motion or at the suggestion of counsel, to submit such issues as are ne 1903What we now say is that section 395 of the Code is mandatory, binding equally upon the court and upon counsel; that it is the duty of the judge, either of his own motion or at the suggestion of counsel, to submit such issues as are necessary to settle the material controversies arising in the pleadings, and that in the absence of such issues or admissions of record equivalent thereto sufficient to reasonably justify, directly or by clear *Page 76 implication, the judgment rendered therein, this Court will remand the case for a new trial." In Pearce v. Fisher , at this term, 133 N.C. 333 , two | 1 | 1903–1903 |
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.