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.
16 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2021 5 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. Popegreen2 sentences2021Defendant asserts the exclusionary rule mandates suppression because the confession was fruit of the poisonous tree. ¶ 87 The “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” provides for application of the exclusionary rule “[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the ‘fruit’ of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.” State v. Pope, 333 N.C. 106, 113-14 , 423 S.E.2d 740, 744 (1992) (citations omitted). 2021Defendant asserts the exclusionary rule mandates suppression because the confession was fruit of the poisonous tree. ¶ 87 The “fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine” provides for application of the exclusionary rule “[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the ‘fruit’ of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.” State v. Pope, 333 N.C. 106, 113-14 , 423 S.E.2d 740, 744 (1992) (citations omitted). | 7 | 8 |
State v. Cookegreen2 sentences2021As noted above, Defendant does not challenge any findings of fact in the Order and instead challenges only the conclusions of law reached by the trial court. ¶6 Review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress is “strictly limited to determining whether the trial [court’s] underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the [trial court’s] ultimate conclusions of law.” State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). 2021As noted above, Defendant does not challenge any findings of fact in the Order and instead challenges only the conclusions of law reached by the trial court. ¶6 Review of a trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress is “strictly limited to determining whether the trial [court’s] underlying findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, in which event they are conclusively binding on appeal, and whether those factual findings in turn support the [trial court’s] ultimate conclusions of law.” State v. Cooke, 306 N.C. 132, 134 , 291 S.E.2d 618, 619 (1982). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wigginsgreen2 sentences2020Although preserved errors not of constitutional dimension are reviewed for 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,” State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18, 27 , 431 S.E.2d 755, 760 (1993) (citation omitted), “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 513 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 331 (2012) (internal marks and citation omitted). 2020Although preserved errors not of constitutional dimension are reviewed for 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,” State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18, 27 , 431 S.E.2d 755, 760 (1993) (citation omitted), “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 513 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 331 (2012) (internal marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2020Although preserved errors not of constitutional dimension are reviewed for 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,” State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18, 27 , 431 S.E.2d 755, 760 (1993) (citation omitted), “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 513 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 331 (2012) (internal marks and citation omitted). 2020Although preserved errors not of constitutional dimension are reviewed for 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,” State v. Wiggins, 334 N.C. 18, 27 , 431 S.E.2d 755, 760 (1993) (citation omitted), “before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 513 , 723 S.E.2d 326, 331 (2012) (internal marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
State v. McKinneygreen2 sentences2020“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,’ a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that ‘[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the “fruit” of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.’” Id. (quoting State v. Pope, 333 N.C. 106, 113-14 , 423 S.E.2d 740, 744 (1992)). 2020“The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,’ a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that ‘[w]hen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, not only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the “fruit” of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.’” Id. (quoting State v. Pope, 333 N.C. 106, 113-14 , 423 S.E.2d 740, 744 (1992)). | 1 | 3 |
Murray v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018But "[o]nly evidence discovered as a result of unconstitutional conduct constitutes 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' " McKinney , 361 N.C. at 58 , 637 S.E.2d at 872 (emphasis added) (citing Murray v. United States , 487 U.S. 533 , 542, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) ). 2018But "[o]nly evidence discovered as a result of unconstitutional conduct constitutes 'fruit of the poisonous tree.' " McKinney , 361 N.C. at 58 , 637 S.E.2d at 872 (emphasis added) (citing Murray v. United States , 487 U.S. 533 , 542, 108 S.Ct. 2529 , 101 L.Ed.2d 472 (1988) ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gravesgreen2 sentences2015If reasonable suspicion is found to be lacking, “[u]nder the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine, evidence must be suppressed if it was obtained as the result of illegal police conduct or was the ‘fruit’ of that unlawful conduct.” State v. Graves, 135 N.C. 2015App. 216, 221 , 519 S.E.2d 770, 773 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mitchellgreen2 sentences2013The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,’ a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that ‘[wjhen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, hot only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the ‘fruit’ of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.’ ” (internal citations omitted)); State v. Mitchell, 358 N.C. 63, 66 , 592 S.E.2d 543, 545 (2004) (“Police officers effectuate a seizure when they stop a vehicle at a checkpoint.”). 2013The ‘fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine,’ a specific application of the exclusionary rule, provides that ‘[wjhen evidence is obtained as the result of illegal police conduct, hot only should that evidence be suppressed, but all evidence that is the ‘fruit’ of that unlawful conduct should be suppressed.’ ” (internal citations omitted)); State v. Mitchell, 358 N.C. 63, 66 , 592 S.E.2d 543, 545 (2004) (“Police officers effectuate a seizure when they stop a vehicle at a checkpoint.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phifergreen2 sentences1992As this Court explained in State v. Phifer, 297 N.C. 216 , 254 S.E.2d 586 (1979): “Since the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained through lawful means unrelated to the invalid inventory search, it follows that the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine has no application to this case.” Id. at 226 , 254 S.E.2d at 591 (emphasis added). *513 As recognized by Justice Brennan in his dissent in Nix , there is one crucial distinction between the independent source exception and the inevitable discovery exception: When properly applied, the “independent source” exception allows the prosecutio 1992As this Court explained in State v. Phifer, 297 N.C. 216 , 254 S.E.2d 586 (1979): “Since the evidence sought to be suppressed was obtained through lawful means unrelated to the invalid inventory search, it follows that the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine has no application to this case.” Id. at 226 , 254 S.E.2d at 591 (emphasis added). *513 As recognized by Justice Brennan in his dissent in Nix , there is one crucial distinction between the independent source exception and the inevitable discovery exception: When properly applied, the “independent source” exception allows the prosecutio | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oregon v. Elstad
green
2 sentences1991Id. 1991Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 , 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985). | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Hester v. United States
green
2 sentences1979Finally, although defendants concede that Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches does not extend to open fields, like the field near defendants’ house where marijuana stalks were discovered, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702 , 239 S.E. 2d 459 (1977), they argue that evidence of the marijuana stalks should have been suppressed in accordance with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, established in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). 1979Finally, although defendants concede that Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches does not extend to open fields, like the field near defendants’ house where marijuana stalks were discovered, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702 , 239 S.E. 2d 459 (1977), they argue that evidence of the marijuana stalks should have been suppressed in accordance with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, established in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Wong Sun v. United States
green
2 sentences1979Finally, although defendants concede that Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches does not extend to open fields, like the field near defendants’ house where marijuana stalks were discovered, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702 , 239 S.E. 2d 459 (1977), they argue that evidence of the marijuana stalks should have been suppressed in accordance with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, established in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). 1979Finally, although defendants concede that Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches does not extend to open fields, like the field near defendants’ house where marijuana stalks were discovered, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702 , 239 S.E. 2d 459 (1977), they argue that evidence of the marijuana stalks should have been suppressed in accordance with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, established in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
State v. Boone
green
2 sentences1979Finally, although defendants concede that Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches does not extend to open fields, like the field near defendants’ house where marijuana stalks were discovered, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702 , 239 S.E. 2d 459 (1977), they argue that evidence of the marijuana stalks should have been suppressed in accordance with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, established in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). 1979Finally, although defendants concede that Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches does not extend to open fields, like the field near defendants’ house where marijuana stalks were discovered, Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 , 68 L.Ed. 898 (1924); State v. Boone, 293 N.C. 702 , 239 S.E. 2d 459 (1977), they argue that evidence of the marijuana stalks should have been suppressed in accordance with the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, established in Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 9 L.Ed. 2d 441 (1963). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.