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.
8 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2020 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. Mainesgreen2 sentences1987State v. Maines, 301 N.C. 669, 674 , 273 S.E. 2d 289, 293 (1981). 1987State v. Maines, 301 N.C. 669, 674 , 273 S.E. 2d 289, 293 (1981). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Waringgreen2 sentences2011Ed. 2d at 693 ; accord State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443, 502 , 701 S.E.2d 615, 652 (2010). 2011Ed. 2d at 693 ; accord State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443, 502 , 701 S.E.2d 615, 652 (2010). | 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. Luster
green
2 sentences2020Id. at 572 , 295 S.E.2d at 425 . 2020Id. at 572 , 295 S.E.2d at 425 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Daras v. United States
green
2 sentences1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 N.C. 564, 568 , 189 S.E. 2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [Emphasis added.] The State’s evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goods were stolen; (2) the goods were 1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 *429 N.C. 564, 568, 189 S.E.2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 , 93 S.Ct. 547 , 34 L.Ed.2d 498 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [emphasis added] The State's evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goo | 2 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 N.C. 564, 568 , 189 S.E. 2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [Emphasis added.] The State’s evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goods were stolen; (2) the goods were 1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 N.C. 564, 568 , 189 S.E. 2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [Emphasis added.] The State’s evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goods were stolen; (2) the goods were | 2 | 1987–1987 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2011When a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in most instances he or she must show that (1) “counsel’s performance was deficient” and (2) “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 80 L. 2011When a defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, in most instances he or she must show that (1) “counsel’s performance was deficient” and (2) “the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 , 80 L. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Hornsby
green
2 sentences2007“The defense [of insanity] is unrelated to the existence or nonexistence of the elements of the criminal act; thus, where a defendant raises the defense of insanity, the burden remains upon the State ... to prove . . . the existence of each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.” Hornsby, 152 N.C. 2007App. at 366 , 567 S.E.2d at 456 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Marley
green
2 sentences2002State v. Marley, 321 N.C. 415 , 364 S.E.2d 133 (1988). 2002State v. Marley, 321 N.C. 415 , 364 S.E.2d 133 (1988). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
United States v. Billy G. Byers
green
2 sentences1989Circuit in Byers held that when “a defendant raises the defense of insanity, he may constitutionally be subjected to compulsory examination by court-appointed or government psychiatrists . . . ; and when he introduces into evidence psychiatric testimony to support his insanity defense, testimony of those examining psychiatrists may be received . . . as well.” United States v. Byers, 740 F. 2d at 1115 . 1989Circuit in Byers held that when "a defendant raises the defense of insanity, he may constitutionally be subjected to compulsory examination by court-appointed or government psychiatrists ...; and when he introduces into evidence psychiatric testimony to support his insanity defense, testimony of those examining psychiatrists may be received... as well." United States v. Byers, 740 F.2d at 1115 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Berryhill v. United States
green
1 sentence1987As stated in State v. Lewis, 281 *429 N.C. 564, 568, 189 S.E.2d 216, 219 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1046 , 93 S.Ct. 547 , 34 L.Ed.2d 498 (1972): When it is established that a store or warehouse has been broken into and entered and that merchandise has been stolen therefrom, the discovery, soon after such theft of articles, so stolen, in the possession of the defendant raises a presumption that he is guilty both of the breaking and entering and of the larceny. [emphasis added] The State's evidence must establish the following facts in order to invoke the doctrine of recent possession: (1) the goo | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.