Allen instruction (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

Allen instruction in North Carolina

13 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2022 2 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 (9)

CaseFollowedCited
Allen v. United Statesgreen
· 1896 · cited in 6 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2002–2017
2 sentences

2017Often called an Allen instruction, subsection 15A-1235(b) complies with the dictates of the United States Supreme Court as expressed in Allen v. United States , 164 U.S. 492 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), and is North Carolina's "legislatively-approved version of the Allen charge." State v. Gettys , 219 N.C.

2017Often called an Allen instruction, subsection 15A-1235(b) complies with the dictates of the United States Supreme Court as expressed in Allen v. United States , 164 U.S. 492 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), and is North Carolina's "legislatively-approved version of the Allen charge." State v. Gettys , 219 N.C.

26
Dunn v. Pategreen
nc · 1993 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022See Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118 , 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993) (“[T]he Court of Appeals . . . has no authority to overrule decisions of [the] Supreme Court and [has] the responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

2022See Dunn v. Pate, 334 N.C. 115, 118 , 431 S.E.2d 178, 180 (1993) (“[T]he Court of Appeals . . . has no authority to overrule decisions of [the] Supreme Court and [has] the responsibility to follow those decisions until otherwise ordered by the Supreme Court.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

22
State of North Carolina v. Streetergreen
ncctapp · 2008 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016
2 sentences

2016See State v. Streeter, 191 N.C.App. 496 , 505, 663 S.E.2d 879 , 885 (2008) (citing *780 State v. Adams, 85 N.C.App. 200 , 210, 354 S.E.2d 338 , 344 (1987) ) (noting that "[t]he decision to give an Allen instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial court.").

2016See State v. Streeter, 191 N.C.App. 496 , 505, 663 S.E.2d 879 , 885 (2008) (citing *780 State v. Adams, 85 N.C.App. 200 , 210, 354 S.E.2d 338 , 344 (1987) ) (noting that "[t]he decision to give an Allen instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial court.").

22
State v. Adamsgreen
ncctapp · 1987 · cited in 3 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016
2 sentences

2016See State v. Streeter, 191 N.C.App. 496 , 505, 663 S.E.2d 879 , 885 (2008) (citing *780 State v. Adams, 85 N.C.App. 200 , 210, 354 S.E.2d 338 , 344 (1987) ) (noting that "[t]he decision to give an Allen instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial court.").

2016See State v. Streeter, 191 N.C.App. 496 , 505, 663 S.E.2d 879 , 885 (2008) (citing *780 State v. Adams, 85 N.C.App. 200 , 210, 354 S.E.2d 338 , 344 (1987) ) (noting that "[t]he decision to give an Allen instruction is within the sound discretion of the trial court.").

13
State v. Rossgreen
ncctapp · 2010 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2013–2016
2 sentences

2016See State v. Ross, 207 N.C.App. 379 , 387-88, 700 S.E.2d 412 , 418 (2010).

2016See State v. Ross, 207 N.C.App. 379 , 387-88, 700 S.E.2d 412 , 418 (2010).

12
State v. Williamsgreen
nc · 1986 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2016
2 sentences

2016In State v. Williams, 315 N.C. 310 , 338 S.E.2d 75 (1986), our Supreme Court found a trial court did not coerce a verdict, despite inquiring into the jury's numerical division and giving an incomplete Allen instruction, where [t]he jury was not required to deliberate for an inordinate amount of time, and at no point did the jurors indicate that they were hopelessly deadlocked.

2016In State v. Williams, 315 N.C. 310 , 338 S.E.2d 75 (1986), our Supreme Court found a trial court did not coerce a verdict, despite inquiring into the jury's numerical division and giving an incomplete Allen instruction, where [t]he jury was not required to deliberate for an inordinate amount of time, and at no point did the jurors indicate that they were hopelessly deadlocked.

12
State v. Bostongreen
ncctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008App. *130 637, 643, 663 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2008). “[I]n deciding whether a court’s instructions force a verdict or merely serve as a catalyst for further deliberations, an appellate court must consider the circumstances under which the instructions were made and the probable impact of the instructions on the jury.” State v. Peek, 313 N.C. 266, 271 , 328 S.E.2d 249, 253 (1985).

2008App. *130 637, 643, 663 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2008). “[I]n deciding whether a court’s instructions force a verdict or merely serve as a catalyst for further deliberations, an appellate court must consider the circumstances under which the instructions were made and the probable impact of the instructions on the jury.” State v. Peek, 313 N.C. 266, 271 , 328 S.E.2d 249, 253 (1985).

11
State v. Peekgreen
nc · 1985 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008App. *130 637, 643, 663 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2008). “[I]n deciding whether a court’s instructions force a verdict or merely serve as a catalyst for further deliberations, an appellate court must consider the circumstances under which the instructions were made and the probable impact of the instructions on the jury.” State v. Peek, 313 N.C. 266, 271 , 328 S.E.2d 249, 253 (1985).

2008App. *130 637, 643, 663 S.E.2d 886, 891 (2008). “[I]n deciding whether a court’s instructions force a verdict or merely serve as a catalyst for further deliberations, an appellate court must consider the circumstances under which the instructions were made and the probable impact of the instructions on the jury.” State v. Peek, 313 N.C. 266, 271 , 328 S.E.2d 249, 253 (1985).

11
State v. Huntergreen
ncctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008See also State v. Hunter, 48 N.C.

2008See also State v. Hunter, 48 N.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (7)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Gettys green
ncctapp · 2012
2 sentences

2017Often called an Allen instruction, subsection 15A-1235(b) complies with the dictates of the United States Supreme Court as expressed in Allen v. United States , 164 U.S. 492 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), and is North Carolina's "legislatively-approved version of the Allen charge." State v. Gettys , 219 N.C.

2017Often called an Allen instruction, subsection 15A-1235(b) complies with the dictates of the United States Supreme Court as expressed in Allen v. United States , 164 U.S. 492 , 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896), and is North Carolina's "legislatively-approved version of the Allen charge." State v. Gettys , 219 N.C.

12017–2017
State v. Fleming green
ncctapp · 2001
2 sentences

2015There, the defendant committed two successive robberies by *547 brandishing what appeared to be a gun in his waistband; when he was apprehended moments later by police after the victims called 911 and described his vehicle, the defendant was carrying the exact amount of money stolen during the robberies, and the weapon, which was still in his waistband, turned out to be a BB gun. 148 N.C.App. at 18 -19 , 557 S.E.2d at 561 -62 .

2015There, the defendant committed two successive robberies by *547 brandishing what appeared to be a gun in his waistband; when he was apprehended moments later by police after the victims called 911 and described his vehicle, the defendant was carrying the exact amount of money stolen during the robberies, and the weapon, which was still in his waistband, turned out to be a BB gun. 148 N.C.App. at 18 -19 , 557 S.E.2d at 561 -62 .

12015–2015
State v. Dexter green
ncctapp · 2002
2 sentences

2013This case is distinguishable from Dexter, 151 N.C.

2013This case is distinguishable from Dexter, 151 N.C.

12013–2013
State v. Wiley green
nc · 2002
2 sentences

2010As defendant made no objection at trial and this is in regard to the trial court’s instructions, Wiley, 355 N.C. at 615 , 565 S.E.2d at 39-40 , we review for plain error.

2010As defendant made no objection at trial and this is in regard to the trial court’s instructions, Wiley, 355 N.C. at 615 , 565 S.E.2d at 39-40 , we review for plain error.

12010–2010
State v. Odom green
nc · 1983
2 sentences

2010Odom, 307 N.C. at 660 , 300 S.E.2d at 378 .

2010Odom, 307 N.C. at 660 , 300 S.E.2d at 378 .

12010–2010
State v. Jones green
nc · 1996
2 sentences

2009Jones, 342 N.C. at 468 , 466 S.E.2d at 701 .

2009Jones, 342 N.C. at 468 , 466 S.E.2d at 701 .

12009–2009
Beech Mountain Property Owner's Ass'n v. Seifart green
ncctapp · 1980
2 sentences

2008Rather, we evaluate the covenant at issue according to the general standard that covenants imposing affirmative obligations on the grantee must contain “some ascertainable standard ... by which the court can objectively determine both that the amount of the assessment and the purpose for which it is levied fall within the contemplation of the covenant.” Seifart, 48 N.C.

2008Rather, we evaluate the covenant at issue according to the general standard that covenants imposing affirmative obligations on the grantee must contain “some ascertainable standard ... by which the court can objectively determine both that the amount of the assessment and the purpose for which it is levied fall within the contemplation of the covenant.” Seifart, 48 N.C.

12008–2008

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1235 (9) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1443 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1234 (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 52 (1966–2024) WA 44 (1983–2026) UT 38 (1990–2026) CA 37 (1936–2025) KS 31 (1966–2026) GA 27 (1986–2024) CO 22 (1992–2025) FL 21 (1985–2025) IN 20 (1981–2020) TN 19 (2000–2025) MD 18 (1977–2021) OH 18 (1975–2025) NY 17 (1989–2022) PA 16 (1974–2022) NC 13 (2002–2022) AZ 13 (1996–2021) OK 12 (1983–2021) WI 12 (1975–2026) IL 10 (1966–2022) MO 9 (1996–2019) ID 9 (1987–2022) AL 9 (1958–2010) IA 9 (2001–2026) MI 8 (1970–2025) NV 8 (1980–2021) NE 8 (2006–2025) MT 8 (1998–2014) DE 8 (1974–2025) MS 8 (1992–2020) VA 7 (1981–2025) HI 7 (1982–2026) DC 7 (1985–2018) LA 6 (1983–2002) CT 5 (1993–2015) AR 3 (1995–2025) WY 3 (1971–2023) OR 3 (1990–2007) NH 3 (2002–2010) MA 3 (1979–2025) ME 2 (1990–2006) NJ 2 (1997–2007) KY 2 (1967–2007) WV 2 (1982–2010)

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