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.
23 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2014 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. Milbygreen2 sentences2014The test for prejudicial error is “whether there [exists] a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of contributed to the conviction[.]” State v. Milby, 302 N.C. 137, 142 , 273 S.E.2d 716, 720 (1981) (emphasis added). 2014The test for prejudicial error is “whether there [exists] a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of contributed to the conviction[.]” State v. Milby, 302 N.C. 137, 142 , 273 S.E.2d 716, 720 (1981) (emphasis added). | 4 | 7 |
State v. Irwingreen2 sentences2002See State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 107 , 282 S.E.2d 439, 449 (1981) (holding that if a reasonable possibility exists that the erroneous submission of an aggravating circumstance tipped the scales in the jury’s determination that the aggravating circumstances were “sufficiently substantial” to justify imposition of the death sentence, the test for prejudicial error has been met). 2002See State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 107 , 282 S.E.2d 439, 449 (1981) (holding that if a reasonable possibility exists that the erroneous submission of an aggravating circumstance tipped the scales in the jury’s determination that the aggravating circumstances were “sufficiently substantial” to justify imposition of the death sentence, the test for prejudicial error has been met). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Scottgreen2 sentences2014"The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial." State v. Scott, 331 N.C. 39, 46 , 413 S.E.2d 787, 791 (1992) (citation omitted). 2014"The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial." State v. Scott, 331 N.C. 39, 46 , 413 S.E.2d 787, 791 (1992) (citation omitted). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Goodwingreen2 sentences2012“The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error not been committed, a different result would have been reached at trial.” State v. Goodwin, 186 N.C. 2012App. 638, 644 , 652 S.E.2d 36, 40 (2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Valentinegreen2 sentences2012App. 727, 729 , 202 S.E.2d 496, 498 (1974) (“In order to entitle defendant to a new trial, the error complained of. must be prejudicial to him.”). 2012The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had the error not been committed.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 406 , 494 S.E.2d 427 (1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1031 , 140 L.Ed. 2d 486 (1998); see also State v. Valentine, 20 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Heardgreen2 sentences1991The test for prejudicial error is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Heard, 285 N.C. 167, 172 , 203 S.E.2d 826, 829 (1974). 1991The test for prejudicial error is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction.” State v. Heard, 285 N.C. 167, 172 , 203 S.E.2d 826, 829 (1974). | 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. Helms
neutral
2 sentences2012The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had the error not been committed.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 406 , 494 S.E.2d 427 (1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1031 , 140 L.Ed. 2d 486 (1998); see also State v. Valentine, 20 N.C. 2011The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had the error not been committed.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 406 , 494 S.E.2d 427 (1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1031 , 140 L. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Hurst
neutral
2 sentences2012The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had the error not been committed.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 406 , 494 S.E.2d 427 (1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1031 , 140 L.Ed. 2d 486 (1998); see also State v. Valentine, 20 N.C. 2011The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had the error not been committed.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 406 , 494 S.E.2d 427 (1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1031 , 140 L. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
Minniecheske v. Wisconsin
green
2 sentences2012The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had the error not been committed.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 406 , 494 S.E.2d 427 (1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1031 , 140 L.Ed. 2d 486 (1998); see also State v. Valentine, 20 N.C. 2011The test for prejudicial error is whether there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had the error not been committed.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)), disc. review denied and appeal dismissed, 347 N.C. 406 , 494 S.E.2d 427 (1997), cert denied, 523 U.S. 1031 , 140 L. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Black
green
1 sentence2011State v. Black, 111 N.C. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Brown
green
1 sentence1997The test for prejudicial error is “whether there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had the error not been committed.” Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Gardner
green
2 sentences1995“Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) the test for prejudicial error in matters not affecting constitutional rights is whether ‘there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.’ ” State v. Gardner, 316 N.C. at 613 , 342 S.E.2d at 877 . 1995“Under N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a) the test for prejudicial error in matters not affecting constitutional rights is whether ‘there is a reasonable possibility that, had the error in question not been committed, a different result would have been reached at the trial out of which the appeal arises.’ ” State v. Gardner, 316 N.C. at 613 , 342 S.E.2d at 877 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Quesinberry
green
2 sentences1989Id. at 240 , 354 S.E.2d at 453 (quoting State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 107 , 282 S.E.2d 439, 449 (1981) (emphasis in original)). 1989Id. at 240 , 354 S.E.2d at 453 (quoting State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 107 , 282 S.E.2d 439, 449 (1981) (emphasis in original)). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Easterling
green
2 sentences1983State v. Easterling, 300 N.C. 594 , 268 S.E.2d 800 (1980). 1983State v. Easterling, 300 N.C. 594 , 268 S.E.2d 800 (1980). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.