error instruction in North Carolina

17 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2018 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Ashegreen nc · 1985 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1988–2003 2 sentences 2003Id. at 36, 331 S.E.2d at 657 (emphasis supplied). 1988Ashe, 314 N.C. at 36 , 331 S.E. 2d at 657 .	1	2
State v. Boonegreen nc · 1984 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010This Court long has recognized the importance of the knowledge element in drug cases. "`A general intent to commit the act charged is essential.'" State v. Boone, 310 N.C. 284, 293 , 311 S.E.2d 552, 558 (1984) (quoting State v. Elliott, 232 N.C. 377, 379 , 61 S.E.2d 93, 95 (1950)). 2010This Court long has recognized the importance of the knowledge element in drug cases. "`A general intent to commit the act charged is essential.'" State v. Boone, 310 N.C. 284, 293 , 311 S.E.2d 552, 558 (1984) (quoting State v. Elliott, 232 N.C. 377, 379 , 61 S.E.2d 93, 95 (1950)).	1	1
State v. Collinsgreen nc · 1993 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010In order to overturn a trial court's decision, the error in the instruction must be "so fundamental that it denied the defendant a fair trial and quite probably tilted the scales against him." State v. Collins, 334 N.C. 54, 62 , 431 S.E.2d 188, 193 (1993). 2010In order to overturn a trial court's decision, the error in the instruction must be "so fundamental that it denied the defendant a fair trial and quite probably tilted the scales against him." State v. Collins, 334 N.C. 54, 62 , 431 S.E.2d 188, 193 (1993).	1	1
State v. Elliottgreen nc · 1950 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010This Court long has recognized the importance of the knowledge element in drug cases. "`A general intent to commit the act charged is essential.'" State v. Boone, 310 N.C. 284, 293 , 311 S.E.2d 552, 558 (1984) (quoting State v. Elliott, 232 N.C. 377, 379 , 61 S.E.2d 93, 95 (1950)). 2010This Court long has recognized the importance of the knowledge element in drug cases. "`A general intent to commit the act charged is essential.'" State v. Boone, 310 N.C. 284, 293 , 311 S.E.2d 552, 558 (1984) (quoting State v. Elliott, 232 N.C. 377, 379 , 61 S.E.2d 93, 95 (1950)).	1	1
State v. Gaineygreen · 2002 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002Because defendant did not object or otherwise call the instructional error to the attention of the trial court, we must review the instruction under a plain error standard, which requires that defendant carry the heavy 332 burden of establishing that the error in the instruction was “ ‘ “so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached.” ’ ” State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 106 , 558 S.E.2d 463, 484 (2002) (citations omitted). 2002Because defendant did not object or otherwise call the instructional error to the attention of the trial court, we must review the instruction under a plain error standard, which requires that defendant carry the heavy 332 burden of establishing that the error in the instruction was “ ‘ “so fundamental as to amount to a miscarriage of justice or which probably resulted in the jury reaching a different verdict than it otherwise would have reached.” ’ ” State v. Gainey, 355 N.C. 73, 106 , 558 S.E.2d 463, 484 (2002) (citations omitted).	1	1
State v. Odomgreen nc · 1983 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997 2 sentences 1997State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 661 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1983). 1997State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 661 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 379 (1983).	1	1
State v. Hallgreen nc · 1977 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980 2 sentences 1980See State v. Hall, 293 N.C. 559 , 238 S.E. 2d 473 (1977). 1980See State v. Hall, 293 N.C. 559 , 238 S.E. 2d 473 (1977).	1	1
State v. Thomasgreen nc · 1956 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 1972–1972 2 sentences 1972See State v. Thomas, 244 N.C. 212 , 93 S.E. 2d 63 . 1972See State v. Thomas, 244 N.C. 212 , 93 S.E. 2d 63 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
State v. Lawrencegreen nc · 2012 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2014–2018 2 sentences 2014App. 539, 541 , 629 S.E.2d 332, 335 , aff’d per curiam, 361 N.C. 108 , 637 S.E.2d 537 (2006) (holding the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the offense of conspiracy to commit common law robbery on conflicting evidence regarding whether the gun “was real or fake[,]” and reversing the defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial); but see State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 519 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 335 (2012) (stating that “the trial court’s charge on conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon was erroneous,” because the instruction “erroneously om 2014App. 539, 541 , 629 S.E.2d 332, 335 , aff’d per curiam, 361 N.C. 108 , 637 S.E.2d 537 (2006) (holding the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the offense of conspiracy to commit common law robbery on conflicting evidence regarding whether the gun “was real or fake[,]” and reversing the defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial); but see State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 519 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 335 (2012) (stating that “the trial court’s charge on conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon was erroneous,” because the instruction “erroneously om	1	2

Also cited on this issue (14)

Case	Cited	Years
Gilreath v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF HEALTH neutral nc · 2006 1 sentence 2014App. 539, 541 , 629 S.E.2d 332, 335 , aff’d per curiam, 361 N.C. 108 , 637 S.E.2d 537 (2006) (holding the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the offense of conspiracy to commit common law robbery on conflicting evidence regarding whether the gun “was real or fake[,]” and reversing the defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial); but see State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 519 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 335 (2012) (stating that “the trial court’s charge on conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon was erroneous,” because the instruction “erroneously om	1	2014–2014
State v. Carter neutral nc · 2006 1 sentence 2014App. 539, 541 , 629 S.E.2d 332, 335 , aff’d per curiam, 361 N.C. 108 , 637 S.E.2d 537 (2006) (holding the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the offense of conspiracy to commit common law robbery on conflicting evidence regarding whether the gun “was real or fake[,]” and reversing the defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial); but see State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 519 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 335 (2012) (stating that “the trial court’s charge on conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon was erroneous,” because the instruction “erroneously om	1	2014–2014
State v. Carter green ncctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2014App. 539, 541 , 629 S.E.2d 332, 335 , aff’d per curiam, 361 N.C. 108 , 637 S.E.2d 537 (2006) (holding the trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct the jury on the offense of conspiracy to commit common law robbery on conflicting evidence regarding whether the gun “was real or fake[,]” and reversing the defendant’s conviction and remanding for a new trial); but see State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 519 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 335 (2012) (stating that “the trial court’s charge on conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon was erroneous,” because the instruction “erroneously om	1	2014–2014
State v. McNeil green ncctapp · 2004 1 sentence 2009McNeil, 165 N.C.	1	2009–2009
State v. McQueen green nc · 1989 1 sentence 2005This assignment of error is overruled.” Id.	1	2005–2005
State v. Mash green nc · 1988 2 sentences 2002The Supreme Court ruled that because the central issue at trial was that of intent, "had the error in the instruction on intoxication not been made, there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have obtained at trial." Id. at 350 , 372 S.E.2d at 538-39 . 2002The Supreme Court ruled that because the central issue at trial was that of intent, "had the error in the instruction on intoxication not been made, there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would have obtained at trial." Id. at 350 , 372 S.E.2d at 538-39 .	1	2002–2002
State v. Clark green nc · 1989 2 sentences 1989We have stated that “[i]n determining whether to give the substance of an instruction concerning a defense, . . . the trial court must . . . assess the evidence first for the legal principles it implicates, and second for the sufficiency of the evidence itself.” Id. at 161 , 377 S.E. 2d at 63 . 1989We have stated that "[i]n determining whether to give the substance of an instruction concerning a defense, ... the trial court must... assess the evidence first for the legal principles it implicates, and second for the sufficiency of the evidence itself." Id. at ___, 377 S.E.2d at 63.	1	1989–1989
Walton v. Meir green ncctapp · 1972 1 sentence 1982While this Court has expressed some concern about the “overzealous use” of oral testimony in a hearing in a summary judgment motion, Walton v. Meir, 14 N.C.	1	1982–1982
May v. . Grove green nc · 1928 1 sentence 1938May v. Grove, 195 N. C., 235 , and cases there cited.	1	1938–1938
Edgerton v. . Taylor green nc · 1922 2 sentences 1929Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros., 195 N. C., 173 , 141 S. E., 542 ; Edgerton v. Taylor, 184 N. C., 571 , 115 S. E., 156 ; Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127 , 76 S. E., 735 ; Builders Supply Co. v. Roofing Co., 160 N. C., 443 , 76 S. E., 498 . 329 There are other assignments of error on defendant’s appeal in this case, which do not require consideration, as there must be a new. trial, for the error in the instruction to the jury as indicated. 1929Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros., 195 N. C., 173 , 141 S. E., 542 ; Edgerton v. Taylor, 184 N. C., 571 , 115 S. E., 156 ; Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127 , 76 S. E., 735 ; Builders Supply Co. v. Roofing Co., 160 N. C., 443 , 76 S. E., 498 . 329 There are other assignments of error on defendant’s appeal in this case, which do not require consideration, as there must be a new. trial, for the error in the instruction to the jury as indicated.	1	1929–1929
Owens v. . Wright green nc · 1912 2 sentences 1929Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros., 195 N. C., 173 , 141 S. E., 542 ; Edgerton v. Taylor, 184 N. C., 571 , 115 S. E., 156 ; Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127 , 76 S. E., 735 ; Builders Supply Co. v. Roofing Co., 160 N. C., 443 , 76 S. E., 498 . 329 There are other assignments of error on defendant’s appeal in this case, which do not require consideration, as there must be a new. trial, for the error in the instruction to the jury as indicated. 1929Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros., 195 N. C., 173 , 141 S. E., 542 ; Edgerton v. Taylor, 184 N. C., 571 , 115 S. E., 156 ; Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127 , 76 S. E., 735 ; Builders Supply Co. v. Roofing Co., 160 N. C., 443 , 76 S. E., 498 . 329 There are other assignments of error on defendant’s appeal in this case, which do not require consideration, as there must be a new. trial, for the error in the instruction to the jury as indicated.	1	1929–1929
Everett B. Clark Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros. neutral nc · 1928 2 sentences 1929Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros., 195 N. C., 173 , 141 S. E., 542 ; Edgerton v. Taylor, 184 N. C., 571 , 115 S. E., 156 ; Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127 , 76 S. E., 735 ; Builders Supply Co. v. Roofing Co., 160 N. C., 443 , 76 S. E., 498 . 329 There are other assignments of error on defendant’s appeal in this case, which do not require consideration, as there must be a new. trial, for the error in the instruction to the jury as indicated. 1929Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros., 195 N. C., 173 , 141 S. E., 542 ; Edgerton v. Taylor, 184 N. C., 571 , 115 S. E., 156 ; Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127 , 76 S. E., 735 ; Builders Supply Co. v. Roofing Co., 160 N. C., 443 , 76 S. E., 498 . 329 There are other assignments of error on defendant’s appeal in this case, which do not require consideration, as there must be a new. trial, for the error in the instruction to the jury as indicated.	1	1929–1929
Charlotte Supply Co. v. Burriss Metal Roofing Co. neutral nc · 1912 2 sentences 1929Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros., 195 N. C., 173 , 141 S. E., 542 ; Edgerton v. Taylor, 184 N. C., 571 , 115 S. E., 156 ; Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127 , 76 S. E., 735 ; Builders Supply Co. v. Roofing Co., 160 N. C., 443 , 76 S. E., 498 . 329 There are other assignments of error on defendant’s appeal in this case, which do not require consideration, as there must be a new. trial, for the error in the instruction to the jury as indicated. 1929Seed Co. v. Jennette Bros., 195 N. C., 173 , 141 S. E., 542 ; Edgerton v. Taylor, 184 N. C., 571 , 115 S. E., 156 ; Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127 , 76 S. E., 735 ; Builders Supply Co. v. Roofing Co., 160 N. C., 443 , 76 S. E., 498 . 329 There are other assignments of error on defendant’s appeal in this case, which do not require consideration, as there must be a new. trial, for the error in the instruction to the jury as indicated.	1	1929–1929
White v. City of New Bern neutral nc · 1907 1 sentence 1913The case of White v. New Bern, supra, approving Fitzgerald v. Concord, shows clearly the error of the instruction in this case.	1	1913–1913

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1 (4) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 109 (1915–2026) CA 102 (1878–2026) MS 66 (1870–2026) IL 63 (1895–2026) MO 52 (1864–2020) WA 48 (1926–2025) IN 41 (1905–2024) OR 39 (1963–2026) FL 30 (1923–2019) OK 29 (1914–2024) LA 26 (1940–2024) MN 25 (1921–2025) KY 24 (1883–2023) MA 24 (1907–2018) NJ 23 (1912–2026) MI 22 (1894–2025) NM 20 (1923–2024) OH 19 (1927–2023) PA 18 (1914–2026) NC 17 (1913–2018) HI 17 (1992–2025) NE 16 (1882–2024) WI 15 (1975–2024) KS 14 (1887–2024) IA 14 (1859–2020) TN 13 (1927–2017) NY 12 (1885–2012) GA 12 (1935–2024) NV 12 (1914–2024) MD 10 (1978–2026) AL 9 (1884–2008) ND 9 (1900–2011) AR 9 (1892–1994) AZ 7 (1968–2016) CO 6 (1873–2026) SC 6 (1909–2022) VA 5 (1899–2024) VT 5 (1893–1993) DE 5 (2015–2018) ID 5 (1935–2003) UT 5 (1987–2020) ME 5 (1981–2014) WY 4 (1916–2017) WV 4 (1937–2025) DC 4 (1947–1992) AK 3 (1991–2018) VI 2 (2002–2009) MT 2 (1907–2011)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check