forfeiture doctrine in North Carolina

2018In addition, defendant argued that the forfeiture doctrine did not extinguish defendant's confrontation rights given the absence of any evidence tending to show that defendant had killed Ms. Wells for the purpose of preventing her from testifying about the domestic criminal trespass case that resulted from the 10 December 2012 incident, citing Giles v. California , 554 U.S. 353 , 361, 128 S.Ct. 2678 , 2684, 171 L.Ed. 2d 488 , 497 (2008) (explaining "that unconfronted testimony would not be admitted without a showing that the defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying").

2018In addition, defendant argued that the forfeiture doctrine did not extinguish defendant's confrontation rights given the absence of any evidence tending to show that defendant had killed Ms. Wells for the purpose of preventing her from testifying about the domestic criminal trespass case that resulted from the 10 December 2012 incident, citing Giles v. California , 554 U.S. 353 , 361, 128 S.Ct. 2678 , 2684, 171 L.Ed. 2d 488 , 497 (2008) (explaining "that unconfronted testimony would not be admitted without a showing that the defendant intended to prevent a witness from testifying").

2018Finally, defendant asserted that the trial court had erred by failing to make findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of its decision to overrule **277 his objection to the challenged portion of Officer Kato's testimony, (citing *96 State v. Silva , 304 N.C. 122 , 136, 282 S.E.2d 449 , 457-58 (1981) ). 3 The State, on the other hand, argued that Officer Kato's testimony concerning the statements that Ms. Wells made at the time of the 10 December 2012 incident stemmed from an informal conversation that occurred during an ongoing emergency arising from a domestic dispute between defend

2018Finally, defendant asserted that the trial court had erred by failing to make findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of its decision to overrule **277 his objection to the challenged portion of Officer Kato's testimony, (citing *96 State v. Silva , 304 N.C. 122 , 136, 282 S.E.2d 449 , 457-58 (1981) ). 3 The State, on the other hand, argued that Officer Kato's testimony concerning the statements that Ms. Wells made at the time of the 10 December 2012 incident stemmed from an informal conversation that occurred during an ongoing emergency arising from a domestic dispute between defend

2018Finally, defendant asserted that the trial court had erred by failing to make findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of its decision to overrule **277 his objection to the challenged portion of Officer Kato's testimony, (citing *96 State v. Silva , 304 N.C. 122 , 136, 282 S.E.2d 449 , 457-58 (1981) ). 3 The State, on the other hand, argued that Officer Kato's testimony concerning the statements that Ms. Wells made at the time of the 10 December 2012 incident stemmed from an informal conversation that occurred during an ongoing emergency arising from a domestic dispute between defend

2018Finally, defendant asserted that the trial court had erred by failing to make findings of fact or conclusions of law in support of its decision to overrule **277 his objection to the challenged portion of Officer Kato's testimony, (citing *96 State v. Silva , 304 N.C. 122 , 136, 282 S.E.2d 449 , 457-58 (1981) ). 3 The State, on the other hand, argued that Officer Kato's testimony concerning the statements that Ms. Wells made at the time of the 10 December 2012 incident stemmed from an informal conversation that occurred during an ongoing emergency arising from a domestic dispute between defend

2007Given that this Court concluded in Hill, 173 N.C.

2006Id.

2001See Wade v. Wade, 72 N.C.App. 372 , 325 S.E.2d 260 (1985); Tripp v. Tripp, 17 N.C.App. 64 , 193 S.E.2d 366 (1972).

2001See Wade v. Wade, 72 N.C.App. 372 , 325 S.E.2d 260 (1985); Tripp v. Tripp, 17 N.C.App. 64 , 193 S.E.2d 366 (1972).

1974In the few cases from other jurisdictions where the question has been considered “[t]he strong weight of authority holds that forfeitures for engaging in subsequent competitive employment, included in pension retirement plans, are valid, even though unrestricted in time and geography.” Rochester Corporation v. Rochester, 450 F. 2d 118, 122-123 .

1952The effect of broadly.interpreting a forfeiture clause as barring all contests on penalty of forfeiture, whether made on probable cause or not, will furnish those who would profit by a will procured by undue influence, or made by one lacking testamentary capacity, with a helpful cover for their wrongful designs.” In In re Kathan's Will, supra, the Court said: “We must remember that the statute of wills is a part of the public law, and a condition that an heir shall not be permitted to show testator’s want of testamentary capacity, or his other noncomplianee with the statute of the state withou

1925“There is a cardinal rulej also, that the heir should not be disinherited except by express devise or by one arising from necessary implication, by which the property is given to another, *151 though tho right of the testator to omit the heir from his will is not to be denied or curtailed.” Underhill on Wills, sec. 466; Kidder v. Bailey, supra. It is pointed out in appellees’ brief that testator undoubtedly thought he was disposing of his entire estate, because it is provided in the forfeiture clause that, in case of a contest, the caveators “shall not be entitled to the part I have intended f

1925This is a companion case to Whitehurst v. Gotwalt, 189 N. C., 577 , heard at the last term, and in which we had occasion, to consider the validity and meaning of a forfeiture clause or clause against contest, with limitation over, contained in the will of D.