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.
22 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 8 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. Garciagreen2 sentences2025Defendant contends we should apply a structural error analysis to these issues to consider how our courts should “protect a defendant’s constitutional right to direct her own defense when the defendant’s counsel throws away that right ‘at trial.’ ” “Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism’ which are so serious that ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.’ ” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (quoting Arizon 2025Defendant contends we should apply a structural error analysis to these issues to consider how our courts should “protect a defendant’s constitutional right to direct her own defense when the defendant’s counsel throws away that right ‘at trial.’ ” “Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism’ which are so serious that ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.’ ” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (quoting Arizon | 14 | 16 |
Arizona v. Fulminantegreen2 sentences2025Defendant contends we should apply a structural error analysis to these issues to consider how our courts should “protect a defendant’s constitutional right to direct her own defense when the defendant’s counsel throws away that right ‘at trial.’ ” “Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism’ which are so serious that ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.’ ” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (quoting Arizon 2025Defendant contends we should apply a structural error analysis to these issues to consider how our courts should “protect a defendant’s constitutional right to direct her own defense when the defendant’s counsel throws away that right ‘at trial.’ ” “Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from ‘structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism’ which are so serious that ‘a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.’ ” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (quoting Arizon | 7 | 12 |
Rose v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2004Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from "structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism" which are so serious that "`a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.'" Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264-65 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302, 331 (1991) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460, 470 (1986)). 2004Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from "structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism" which are so serious that "`a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.'" Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 309-310 , 111 S.Ct. 1246, 1264-65 , 113 L.Ed.2d 302, 331 (1991) (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460, 470 (1986)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Thompsongreen2 sentences2020“Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism which are so serious that a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 86 , 604 S.E.2d 850, 860 (2004) 5 STATE V. 2020“Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism which are so serious that a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” State v. Thompson, 359 N.C. 77, 86 , 604 S.E.2d 850, 860 (2004) 5 STATE V. | 2 | 2 |
Neder v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005Such errors "deprive defendants of `basic protections,' without which . . . `no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.'" Neder, 527 U.S. at 8-9 , 119 S.Ct. at 1834 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 46 -47 (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460, 470 (1986)). 2005Such errors "deprive defendants of `basic protections,' without which . . . `no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair.'" Neder, 527 U.S. at 8-9 , 119 S.Ct. at 1834 , 144 L.Ed.2d at 46 -47 (quoting Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 , 106 S.Ct. 3101, 3106 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460, 470 (1986)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2013“North Carolina courts also apply a form of structural error known as error per se[,]” and “[l]ike structural error, error per se is automatically deemed prejudicial and thus reversible without a showing of prejudice.” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 514 , 723 S.E.2d at 331, 332 . 2013“North Carolina courts also apply a form of structural error known as error per se[,]” and “[l]ike structural error, error per se is automatically deemed prejudicial and thus reversible without a showing of prejudice.” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 514 , 723 S.E.2d at 331, 332 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
McKeithan v. Lavan, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas
green
1 sentence2025“Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from structural defects in the constitution of the trial mechanism which are so serious that a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence.” State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 409 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 744 (2004) (cleaned up), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 161 L. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Tumey v. Ohio
green
2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r 2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sullivan v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r 2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Gideon v. Wainwright
green
2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r 2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Vasquez v. Hillery
green
2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r 2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Waller v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r 2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r | 1 | 2020–2020 |
McKaskle v. Wiggins
green
2 sentences2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r 2020The United States Supreme Court has identified only six instances of structural error to date: (1) complete deprivation of right to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 , 83 S.Ct. 792 , 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); (2) a biased trial judge, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 , 47 S.Ct. 437 , 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); (3) the unlawful exclusion of grand jurors of the defendant’s race, Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 , 106 S.Ct. 617 , 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986); (4) denial of the right to self-representation at trial, McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 , 104 S.Ct. 944 , 79 L.Ed.2d 122 (1984); (5) denial of the r | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Allen
green
2 sentences2005“Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from a ‘defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ” Id. at 441 , 615 S.E.2d at 267 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 , 113 L. 2005“Structural error is a rare form of constitutional error resulting from a ‘defect affecting the framework within which the trial proceeds, rather than simply an error in the trial process itself.’ ” Id. at 441 , 615 S.E.2d at 267 (quoting Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 , 113 L. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Brecht v. Abrahamson
green
2 sentences2004"Such errors `infect the entire trial process,' Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1717 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 , and ` necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair, Rose, 478 U.S. at 577 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106 .'" Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35, 46 (1999). 2004"Such errors `infect the entire trial process,' Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 630 , 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1717 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 , and ` necessarily render a trial fundamentally unfair, Rose, 478 U.S. at 577 , 106 S.Ct. at 3106 .'" Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 8 , 119 S.Ct. 1827, 1833 , 144 L.Ed.2d 35, 46 (1999). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.