test waiver in North Carolina

2016However, we do not believe that, given an examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury's [verdict]."), disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015) ; State v. Blizzard, 169 N.C.App. 285 , 294-95, 610 S.E.2d 245 , 252 (2005) (medical expert's testimony that when he saw victim shortly after rape allegedly occurred, victim "truly was believable" to him was error but did not rise to level of plain error in light of overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt).

2016However, we do not believe that, given an examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury's [verdict]."), disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015) ; State v. Blizzard, 169 N.C.App. 285 , 294-95, 610 S.E.2d 245 , 252 (2005) (medical expert's testimony that when he saw victim shortly after rape allegedly occurred, victim "truly was believable" to him was error but did not rise to level of plain error in light of overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt).

2016However, we do not believe that, given an examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury's [verdict]."), disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015) ; State v. Blizzard, 169 N.C.App. 285 , 294-95, 610 S.E.2d 245 , 252 (2005) (medical expert's testimony that when he saw victim shortly after rape allegedly occurred, victim "truly was believable" to him was error but did not rise to level of plain error in light of overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt).

2016However, we do not believe that, given an examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury's [verdict]."), disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 603 , 780 S.E.2d 560 (2015) ; State v. Blizzard, 169 N.C.App. 285 , 294-95, 610 S.E.2d 245 , 252 (2005) (medical expert's testimony that when he saw victim shortly after rape allegedly occurred, victim "truly was believable" to him was error but did not rise to level of plain error in light of overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt).

2010The Court noted that Capps established a test for waiver, "concluding that the issue must be resolved `largely by the facts and circumstances of the particular case on trial.'" Id. (quoting Capps, 253 N.C. at 23 , 116 S.E.2d at 141 ).

2010The Court noted that Capps established a test for waiver, “concluding that the issue must be resolved ‘largely by the facts and circumstances of the particular case on trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Capps, 253 N.C. at 23 , 116 S.E.2d at 141 ).

2010The Court noted that Capps established a test for waiver, "concluding that the issue must be resolved `largely by the facts and circumstances of the particular case on trial.'" Id. (quoting Capps, 253 N.C. at 23 , 116 S.E.2d at 141 ).

2010The Court noted that Capps established a test for waiver, "concluding that the issue must be resolved `largely by the facts and circumstances of the particular case on trial.'" Id. (quoting Capps, 253 N.C. at 23 , 116 S.E.2d at 141 ).

2006The test under this inquiry is “whether the totality of the circumstances reveals a pretrial procedure so unnecessarily suggestive and conducive to irreparable mistaken identity as to offend fundamental standards of decency and justice.” Id.

1987The burden is upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.” Id.; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 705 (1967).

1987The burden is upon the State to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the error was harmless.” Id.; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 17 L.Ed. 2d 705 (1967).

1974App. 237 , 161 S.E. 2d 42 (1968), in an opinion written by Campbell, Judge, held that the arrested person had, as the operator of a motor vehicle, given his implied consent for the test to be administered and the failure of the officers before the test was administered to advise the defendant that he had a right to refuse to take the test was not error.

1974After the 1969 amendment, this Court, in State v. Allen, 14 N.C.

1922In Hunter v. Alderman, 89 S. O., 502, Mr. Justice Woods states the rule as it obtains in South Carolina as follows: “In determining who are fellow-servants, the test or rule in this state is not whether the servants are of different grade, rank, or authority, one of them having power to control and direct the services of another, but the test is in the character of the act being performed by the offending servant, whether it was the performance of some duty which the master owed to the injured ,s„ervant, the performance of which duty the master intrusted to the offending servant.” And this is

1906In Turner v. Lumber Co., 119 N. C., 387 (400), it is said: “The Court may submit issues of negligence with the instruction that it is the province of the jury to say whether the party whose conduct is in question has met the test rule of the prudent man.” McCracken v. Smathers, ib., 617.

1901In fact, it is questionable whether some parts that were given could stand the test of exception, but that is not now before us/" The relative rights, duties and responsibilities of a railroad company and a traveller crossing its track on the highway, are fully discussed in Norton v. Railroad, supra, and Continental Improvement Co. v. Stead, 95 U. S., 161 .