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.
10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1970–1995 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. Allengreen2 sentences1988He first argues that the murder indictment was fatally defective because it omitted the county of the defendant’s residence. “[A] bill of indictment may be quashed only for want of jurisdiction, irregularity in the selection of the grand jury, or for a fatal defect appearing on the face of the indictment.” State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 492, 494 , 183 S.E. 2d 659, 661 (1971). 1988He first argues that the murder indictment was fatally defective because it omitted the county of the defendant’s residence. “[A] bill of indictment may be quashed only for want of jurisdiction, irregularity in the selection of the grand jury, or for a fatal defect appearing on the face of the indictment.” State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 492, 494 , 183 S.E. 2d 659, 661 (1971). | 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. Jones
green
2 sentences1987He contends that in our first decision in this case and in State v. Jones, 309 N.C. 214 , 306 S.E.2d 451 (1983), this Court ignored the plain meaning of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a)(2)c which provides for this mitigating factor. 1987He contends that in our first decision in this case and in State v. Jones, 309 N.C. 214 , 306 S.E.2d 451 (1983), this Court ignored the plain meaning of N.C.G.S. § 15A-1340.4(a)(2)c which provides for this mitigating factor. | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Simmons v. South Carolina
green
1 sentence1995The defendant, relying on Simmons v. South Carolina, - U.S. -, 129 L. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Edwards v. Arizona
green
2 sentences1992Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 68 L. 1992Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 68 L. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Wallace
green
2 sentences1991II The defendant first assigns error to the trial judge’s instruction that if the jury found “the defendant went outside and returned with the crowbar and struck his father with the crowbar, then any fear the defendant had of imminent death or imminent great bodily harm from his father would not be reasonable.” In State v. Wallace, 309 N.C. 141 , 305 S.E.2d 548 (1983), the North Carolina Supreme Court set forth the threshold inquiries for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction. 1991II The defendant first assigns error to the trial judge’s instruction that if the jury found “the defendant went outside and returned with the crowbar and struck his father with the crowbar, then any fear the defendant had of imminent death or imminent great bodily harm from his father would not be reasonable.” In State v. Wallace, 309 N.C. 141 , 305 S.E.2d 548 (1983), the North Carolina Supreme Court set forth the threshold inquiries for determining whether a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence1988The Court of Appeals concluded that “the trial court’s treatment of Dr. Winick’s testimony was appropriate . . . .” State v. Anderson, 85 N.C. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
State v. Van McDougall
green
2 sentences1987This Court in State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1 , 301 S.E. 2d 308 (1983), dealt with the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of felony murder based on the underlying felony of attempted rape. 1987This Court in State v. McDougall, 308 N.C. 1 , 301 S.E. 2d 308 (1983), dealt with the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of felony murder based on the underlying felony of attempted rape. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Markham
neutral
1 sentence1985He argues, relying on State v. Markham, 5 N.C. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. . Cureton
green
2 sentences1970In State v. Cureton, 218 N.C. 491 , 11 S.E. 2d 469 (1940), Barnhill, J., stated the rule with respect to the defense of intoxication as follows: “While intoxication is an affirmative defense no special plea is required. 1970In State v. Cureton, 218 N.C. 491 , 11 S.E. 2d 469 (1940), Barnhill, J., stated the rule with respect to the defense of intoxication as follows: “While intoxication is an affirmative defense no special plea is required. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.