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 1965–2007 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2007State v. Williams, 333 N.C. 719, 733 , 430 S.E.2d 888, 895 (1993). 2007State v. Williams, 333 N.C. 719, 733 , 430 S.E.2d 888, 895 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Vickgreen2 sentences2004See State v. Vick, 287 N.C. 37, 43 , 213 S.E.2d 335, 339 (1975). 2004See State v. Vick, 287 N.C. 37, 43 , 213 S.E.2d 335, 339 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Faustgreen2 sentences1969See also State v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101 , 118 S.E. 2d 769 . 1969See also State v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101 , 118 S.E. 2d 769 . | 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. Williams
neutral
2 sentences2004Precedent set by this Court, however, holds that it is, in fact, error for the trial court to give a jury an interested witness instruction based on testimony of the prosecuting witness because such an instruction would "' improperly and prejudicially' discredit the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses and would be an unwarranted extension of the interested witness rule beyond the reasons underlying its existence." State v. Williams, 6 N.C. 1974In Williams , we concluded that to require such instruction would “ ‘improperly and prejudicially’ discredit the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses and would be an unwarranted extension of the interested witness rule. ...” Id. at 613 , 170 S.E. 2d at 641 . | 2 | 1974–2004 |
State v. Mewborn
green
2 sentences2006Because defendant did not submit the interested witness instruction in writing and signed, “our standard of review is abuse of discretion.” Id. 2006Furthermore, even if the trial court abused its discretion, “defendant is entitled to a new trial only if there is a reasonable probability that, had the abuse of discretion not occurred, a different result would have been reached at trial.” Id. (citing N.C. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Richardson
green
1 sentence1990State v. Richardson, 36 N.C. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State v. Eakins
green
2 sentences1987E.g., State v. Eakins, 292 N.C. 445 , 233 S.E.2d 387 (1977). 1987E.g., State v. Eakins, 292 N.C. 445 , 233 S.E.2d 387 (1977). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Puckett
green
1 sentence1986State v. Puckett, 54 N.C. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Morgan
green
2 sentences1978In State v. Morgan, 263 N.C. 400 , 139 S.E. 2d 708 (1965), it was held that, where defendant was a customer of his witnesses, the question of whether the court should have charged on the interested witness rule was found to be a close one, but it was held that defendant was not prejudiced by such instruction since bias need not prevail over the obligation of a solemn oath. 1978In State v. Morgan, 263 N.C. 400 , 139 S.E. 2d 708 (1965), it was held that, where defendant was a customer of his witnesses, the question of whether the court should have charged on the interested witness rule was found to be a close one, but it was held that defendant was not prejudiced by such instruction since bias need not prevail over the obligation of a solemn oath. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Shinn
neutral
2 sentences1965This assignment of error is overruled. *405 The defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge appearing in capital letters: “The State says and contends you ought to convict this defendant, State says and contends he was on the road that day driving his car and that Officer Swanson had an opportunity to observe him for several miles driving ahead, driving alongside of him, stopping on one occasion and passing him slowly on the other and that AN OFFICER OK HIS EXPERIENCE IS EQUIPPED OR RATHER PIE IS TRAINED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS WHICH AID HIM IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND THAT HE HA 1965This assignment of error is overruled. *405 The defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge appearing in capital letters: “The State says and contends you ought to convict this defendant, State says and contends he was on the road that day driving his car and that Officer Swanson had an opportunity to observe him for several miles driving ahead, driving alongside of him, stopping on one occasion and passing him slowly on the other and that AN OFFICER OK HIS EXPERIENCE IS EQUIPPED OR RATHER PIE IS TRAINED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS WHICH AID HIM IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND THAT HE HA | 1 | 1965–1965 |
State v. . Benton
green
2 sentences1965This assignment of error is overruled. *405 The defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge appearing in capital letters: “The State says and contends you ought to convict this defendant, State says and contends he was on the road that day driving his car and that Officer Swanson had an opportunity to observe him for several miles driving ahead, driving alongside of him, stopping on one occasion and passing him slowly on the other and that AN OFFICER OK HIS EXPERIENCE IS EQUIPPED OR RATHER PIE IS TRAINED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS WHICH AID HIM IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND THAT HE HA 1965This assignment of error is overruled. *405 The defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge appearing in capital letters: “The State says and contends you ought to convict this defendant, State says and contends he was on the road that day driving his car and that Officer Swanson had an opportunity to observe him for several miles driving ahead, driving alongside of him, stopping on one occasion and passing him slowly on the other and that AN OFFICER OK HIS EXPERIENCE IS EQUIPPED OR RATHER PIE IS TRAINED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS WHICH AID HIM IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND THAT HE HA | 1 | 1965–1965 |
State v. . Love
green
2 sentences1965This assignment of error is overruled. *405 The defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge appearing in capital letters: “The State says and contends you ought to convict this defendant, State says and contends he was on the road that day driving his car and that Officer Swanson had an opportunity to observe him for several miles driving ahead, driving alongside of him, stopping on one occasion and passing him slowly on the other and that AN OFFICER OK HIS EXPERIENCE IS EQUIPPED OR RATHER PIE IS TRAINED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS WHICH AID HIM IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND THAT HE HA 1965This assignment of error is overruled. *405 The defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge appearing in capital letters: “The State says and contends you ought to convict this defendant, State says and contends he was on the road that day driving his car and that Officer Swanson had an opportunity to observe him for several miles driving ahead, driving alongside of him, stopping on one occasion and passing him slowly on the other and that AN OFFICER OK HIS EXPERIENCE IS EQUIPPED OR RATHER PIE IS TRAINED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS WHICH AID HIM IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND THAT HE HA | 1 | 1965–1965 |
State v. Simpson
green
2 sentences1965This assignment of error is overruled. *405 The defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge appearing in capital letters: “The State says and contends you ought to convict this defendant, State says and contends he was on the road that day driving his car and that Officer Swanson had an opportunity to observe him for several miles driving ahead, driving alongside of him, stopping on one occasion and passing him slowly on the other and that AN OFFICER OK HIS EXPERIENCE IS EQUIPPED OR RATHER PIE IS TRAINED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS WHICH AID HIM IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND THAT HE HA 1965This assignment of error is overruled. *405 The defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge appearing in capital letters: “The State says and contends you ought to convict this defendant, State says and contends he was on the road that day driving his car and that Officer Swanson had an opportunity to observe him for several miles driving ahead, driving alongside of him, stopping on one occasion and passing him slowly on the other and that AN OFFICER OK HIS EXPERIENCE IS EQUIPPED OR RATHER PIE IS TRAINED TO MAKE OBSERVATIONS WHICH AID HIM IN IDENTIFYING PEOPLE AND THAT HE HA | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.