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.
11 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1949–2026 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. Parkergreen2 sentences2007State v. Parker, 350 N.C. 411, 444 , 516 S.E.2d 106, 127 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1084 , 145 L. 2007State v. Parker, 350 N.C. 411, 444 , 516 S.E.2d 106, 127 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1084 , 145 L. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2026Under plain-error review, a defendant must show an error at trial so “fundamental” as to “establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012). 2021As previously stated, to establish plain error, a defendant must show the error “was a fundamental error—that the error had a probable impact on the jury verdict.” Lawrence, 365 N.C. at 518 , 723 S.E.2d at 334 . | 1 | 3 |
Caldwell v. Phillipsgreen2 sentences2007State v. Parker, 350 N.C. 411, 444 , 516 S.E.2d 106, 127 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1084 , 145 L. 2006See State v. Parker, 350 N.C. 411, 442 , 516 S.E.2d 106, 127 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1084 , 145 L. | 1 | 2 |
Muldoon v. Dome Sheet Metal, Inc.green2 sentences2007State v. Parker, 350 N.C. 411, 444 , 516 S.E.2d 106, 127 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1084 , 145 L. 2006See State v. Parker, 350 N.C. 411, 442 , 516 S.E.2d 106, 127 (1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1084 , 145 L. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fraleygreen2 sentences2022Finally, for evidentiary error subject to plain error review, a defendant must show error and “(i) that a different result probably would have been reached but for the error or (ii) that the error was so fundamental as to result in a miscarriage of justice or denial of a fair trial.” State v. Fraley, 202 N.C. 2022App. 457, 465 , 688 S.E.2d. 778, 785 (2010). 1 The State did not assert a lack of jurisdiction in its brief to this Court, nor did it oppose certiorari review in its response to Defendant’s petition. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Speightgreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., State v. Speight, 166 N.C.App. 106 , 115, 602 S.E.2d 4 , 11 (2004) (concluding that although the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion to suppress for untimeliness, the error was not prejudicial); State v. Chance, 130 N.C.App. 107 , 112, 502 S.E.2d 22 , 25 (1998) (upholding trial court's erroneous denial of motion to suppress where defendant "failed to show a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had such error[ ] not been committed."). 2016See, e.g., State v. Speight, 166 N.C.App. 106 , 115, 602 S.E.2d 4 , 11 (2004) (concluding that although the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion to suppress for untimeliness, the error was not prejudicial); State v. Chance, 130 N.C.App. 107 , 112, 502 S.E.2d 22 , 25 (1998) (upholding trial court's erroneous denial of motion to suppress where defendant "failed to show a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had such error[ ] not been committed."). | 1 | 1 |
McCoy v. Bordenkirchergreen1 sentence2001Consequently, the defendant must show the error “had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 379 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Odom
green
2 sentences2025Odom, 307 N.C. at 660 . 2001Consequently, the defendant must show the error “had a probable impact on the jury’s finding of guilt.” Id. at 661, 300 S.E.2d at 379 . | 2 | 2001–2025 |
State v. Miller
green
1 sentence2026Specifically, the Court explains that to show plain error a defendant must show, in addition that the error occurred at trial, that “the error was ‘fundamental’—meaning that the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty’ and ‘seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ Id. (emphasis added) (citations omitted). -5- STATE V. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Holloway
green
2 sentences2016The trial court acted within its "statutorily vested [authority] ... to deny summarily [a] motion to suppress when the defendant fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Article 53." State v. Holloway, 311 N.C. 573 , 578, 319 S.E.2d 261 , 264 (1984). 2 We note that even if a trial court erroneously summarily denies a motion to suppress, the defendant must show the error was prejudicial. 2016The trial court acted within its "statutorily vested [authority] ... to deny summarily [a] motion to suppress when the defendant fails to comply with the procedural requirements of Article 53." State v. Holloway, 311 N.C. 573 , 578, 319 S.E.2d 261 , 264 (1984). 2 We note that even if a trial court erroneously summarily denies a motion to suppress, the defendant must show the error was prejudicial. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Chance
neutral
2 sentences2016See, e.g., State v. Speight, 166 N.C.App. 106 , 115, 602 S.E.2d 4 , 11 (2004) (concluding that although the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion to suppress for untimeliness, the error was not prejudicial); State v. Chance, 130 N.C.App. 107 , 112, 502 S.E.2d 22 , 25 (1998) (upholding trial court's erroneous denial of motion to suppress where defendant "failed to show a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had such error[ ] not been committed."). 2016See, e.g., State v. Speight, 166 N.C.App. 106 , 115, 602 S.E.2d 4 , 11 (2004) (concluding that although the trial court erroneously denied defendant's motion to suppress for untimeliness, the error was not prejudicial); State v. Chance, 130 N.C.App. 107 , 112, 502 S.E.2d 22 , 25 (1998) (upholding trial court's erroneous denial of motion to suppress where defendant "failed to show a reasonable possibility that a different result would have been reached at trial had such error[ ] not been committed."). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. . Smith
green
2 sentences1949S. v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304 , 30 S.E. 2d 43 ; S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347 , 30 S.E. 2d 151 ; S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738 , 40 S.E. 2d 363 ; S. v. Revels, 227 N.C. 34 (37), 40 S.E. 2d 474 . 1949S. v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304 , 30 S.E. 2d 43 ; S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347 , 30 S.E. 2d 151 ; S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738 , 40 S.E. 2d 363 ; S. v. Revels, 227 N.C. 34 (37), 40 S.E. 2d 474 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
State v. . Gordon
green
2 sentences1949S. v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304 , 30 S.E. 2d 43 ; S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347 , 30 S.E. 2d 151 ; S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738 , 40 S.E. 2d 363 ; S. v. Revels, 227 N.C. 34 (37), 40 S.E. 2d 474 . 1949S. v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304 , 30 S.E. 2d 43 ; S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347 , 30 S.E. 2d 151 ; S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738 , 40 S.E. 2d 363 ; S. v. Revels, 227 N.C. 34 (37), 40 S.E. 2d 474 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
State v. . Graham
neutral
2 sentences1949S. v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304 , 30 S.E. 2d 43 ; S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347 , 30 S.E. 2d 151 ; S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738 , 40 S.E. 2d 363 ; S. v. Revels, 227 N.C. 34 (37), 40 S.E. 2d 474 . 1949S. v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304 , 30 S.E. 2d 43 ; S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347 , 30 S.E. 2d 151 ; S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738 , 40 S.E. 2d 363 ; S. v. Revels, 227 N.C. 34 (37), 40 S.E. 2d 474 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
State v. . Revels
green
2 sentences1949S. v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304 , 30 S.E. 2d 43 ; S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347 , 30 S.E. 2d 151 ; S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738 , 40 S.E. 2d 363 ; S. v. Revels, 227 N.C. 34 (37), 40 S.E. 2d 474 . 1949S. v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304 , 30 S.E. 2d 43 ; S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347 , 30 S.E. 2d 151 ; S. v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738 , 40 S.E. 2d 363 ; S. v. Revels, 227 N.C. 34 (37), 40 S.E. 2d 474 . | 1 | 1949–1949 |
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.