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.
13 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Bagdasariangreen2 sentences2020Id.; Barnette, 319 U.S. at 639 , 87 L. Ed. at 1638 ; see also United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113, 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because the true threat requirement is imposed by the Constitution, the . . . test set forth in Black must be read into all threat statutes that criminalize pure speech.”). 2020Id.; Barnette, 319 U.S. at 639 , 87 L. Ed. at 1638 ; see also United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113, 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because the true threat requirement is imposed by the Constitution, the . . . test set forth in Black must be read into all threat statutes that criminalize pure speech.”). | 3 | 3 |
Watts v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2020Watts v. United States., 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). 2020Watts v. United States., 394 U.S. 705, 708 (1969). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Puckettgreen2 sentences1985While the original altercation evidenced a threat or challenge by the victim to the defendant, see State v. Puckett, 66 N.C. 1985This Court has construed the meaning of the statute to require “a showing of a threat or challenge by the victim to the defendant.” State v. Puckett, 66 N.C. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Braswellgreen2 sentences1989App. 498, 502 , 337 S.E. 2d 637, 639 (1985), quoting State v. Puckett, 66 N.C. 1989In order to find the factor of strong provocation under G.S. sec. 15A-1340.4(a)(2)i, defendant must present -uncontradicted, substantial and manifestly credible evidence of “a threat or challenge by the victim to the defendant.” State v. Braswell, 78 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Counterman v. Coloradogreen1 sentence2024“True threats of violence, everyone agrees, lie outside the bounds of the First Amendment’s protection.” Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 72 (2023) (emphasis added). -7- The “true” in [“true threats”] distinguishes what is at issue from jests, “hyperbole,” or other statements that when taken in context do not convey a real possibility that violence will follow (say, “I am going to kill you for showing up late”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Deesegreen2 sentences2010Considering our prior case law, and the facts of this case, we find no evidence which would “ ‘morally shift part of the fault for a crime from the criminal to the victim.’ ” Id. at 539 , 491 S.E.2d at 685 (citations omitted). 2010Considering our prior case law, and the facts of this case, we find no evidence which would “ ‘morally shift part of the fault for a crime from the criminal to the victim.’ ” Id. at 539 , 491 S.E.2d at 685 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1984See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 309 N.C. 570 , 308 S.E. 2d 302 (1983) (victim pointed gun at defendant); State v. Wood, 61 N.C. 1984See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 309 N.C. 570 , 308 S.E. 2d 302 (1983) (victim pointed gun at defendant); State v. Wood, 61 N.C. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ragansky v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2020Id. | 3 | 2020–2020 |
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
green
2 sentences2020Id.; Barnette, 319 U.S. at 639 , 87 L. Ed. at 1638 ; see also United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113, 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because the true threat requirement is imposed by the Constitution, the . . . test set forth in Black must be read into all threat statutes that criminalize pure speech.”). 2020Id.; Barnette, 319 U.S. at 639 , 87 L. Ed. at 1638 ; see also United States v. Bagdasarian, 652 F.3d 1113, 1117 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Because the true threat requirement is imposed by the Constitution, the . . . test set forth in Black must be read into all threat statutes that criminalize pure speech.”). | 3 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Highsmith
green
2 sentences1988In Highsmith , the Court of Appeals held that “[w]hile the original altercation evidenced a threat or challenge by the victim to the defendant, . . . the ensuing events of defendant proceeding to his residence six blocks away, obtaining a shotgun and shells, and then returning to the vicinity of the original fight manifest actions more consistent with a prior determination to seek out a confrontation rather than a state of passion without time to cool placing defendant beyond control of his reason.” Id. at 100-101 , 327 S.E. 2d at 631 . 1988App. 96 , 327 S.E. 2d 628 (1985), this Court held that the trial court did not err by failing to find the mitigating factor of strong provocation where, after the original altercation which evidenced a threat or challenge to defendant by the victim, defendant proceeded to his residence six blocks away, obtained a shotgun and shells, and then returned to the vicinity of the original fight. | 2 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Watson
green
2 sentences1990Similarly, in State v. Watson, 311 N.C. 252 , 316 S.E.2d 293 (1984), the trial court failed to find provocation as a mitigating factor where the defendant murdered his wife after learning that she was leaving him and upon finding evidence that someone had been visiting his wife at home that same day. 1990Similarly, in State v. Watson, 311 N.C. 252 , 316 S.E.2d 293 (1984), the trial court failed to find provocation as a mitigating factor where the defendant murdered his wife after learning that she was leaving him and upon finding evidence that someone had been visiting his wife at home that same day. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Wood
green
1 sentence1984See, e.g., State v. Taylor, 309 N.C. 570 , 308 S.E. 2d 302 (1983) (victim pointed gun at defendant); State v. Wood, 61 N.C. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.