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 1986–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Milton L. McCaskillgreen2 sentences2018Then the Court of Appeals set out the test for plain error as follows: Plain error occurs when the error is "so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done [.]" State v. Odom , 307 N.C. 655 , 660, 300 S.E.2d 375 , 378 (1983) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. McCaskill , 676 F.2d 995 , 1002 (4th Cir. [ ] ) [, cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982) ] ). 2001Defendant contends admission of this evidence was plain error. 2 *68 The test for plain error places the burden on a defendant to show that error occurred and that the error was a “ ‘ “fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.” ’ ” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983) (quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 74 L. | 4 | 5 |
State v. Odomgreen2 sentences2018Then the Court of Appeals set out the test for plain error as follows: Plain error occurs when the error is "so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done [.]" State v. Odom , 307 N.C. 655 , 660, 300 S.E.2d 375 , 378 (1983) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. McCaskill , 676 F.2d 995 , 1002 (4th Cir. [ ] ) [, cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982) ] ). 2018Then the Court of Appeals set out the test for plain error as follows: Plain error occurs when the error is "so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done [.]" State v. Odom , 307 N.C. 655 , 660, 300 S.E.2d 375 , 378 (1983) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. McCaskill , 676 F.2d 995 , 1002 (4th Cir. [ ] ) [, cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982) ] ). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences2014The test for plain error “is unlikely to be satisfied . . . when evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming.” Id. at 516 , 723 S.E.2d at 333 ; State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 40 , 340 S.E.2d 80, 84 (1986) (holding that “the overwhelming evidence against the defendant prevented the error complained of from rising to the level of plain error”). 2014The test for plain error “is unlikely to be satisfied . . . when evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming.” Id. at 516 , 723 S.E.2d at 333 ; State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 40 , 340 S.E.2d 80, 84 (1986) (holding that “the overwhelming evidence against the defendant prevented the error complained of from rising to the level of plain error”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Stevensongreen2 sentences1993“The test for plain error is whether absent the omission the jury probably would have returnéd a different verdict.” State v. Stevenson, 327 N.C. 259, 265 , 393 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1990). *114 We cannot say the court committed error in not charging that the jury must find the defendant took United States currency or a pistol rather than charge that the jury must find he took property. 1993“The test for plain error is whether absent the omission the jury probably would have returnéd a different verdict.” State v. Stevenson, 327 N.C. 259, 265 , 393 S.E.2d 527, 530 (1990). *114 We cannot say the court committed error in not charging that the jury must find the defendant took United States currency or a pistol rather than charge that the jury must find he took property. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dean v. United States
green
2 sentences2018Then the Court of Appeals set out the test for plain error as follows: Plain error occurs when the error is "so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done [.]" State v. Odom , 307 N.C. 655 , 660, 300 S.E.2d 375 , 378 (1983) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. McCaskill , 676 F.2d 995 , 1002 (4th Cir. [ ] ) [, cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982) ] ). 2001Defendant contends admission of this evidence was plain error. 2 *68 The test for plain error places the burden on a defendant to show that error occurred and that the error was a “ ‘ “fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.” ’ ” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983) (quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 74 L. | 3 | 2000–2018 |
McCoy v. Bordenkircher
green
2 sentences2018Then the Court of Appeals set out the test for plain error as follows: Plain error occurs when the error is "so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done [.]" State v. Odom , 307 N.C. 655 , 660, 300 S.E.2d 375 , 378 (1983) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. McCaskill , 676 F.2d 995 , 1002 (4th Cir. [ ] ) [, cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982) ] ). 2001Defendant contends admission of this evidence was plain error. 2 *68 The test for plain error places the burden on a defendant to show that error occurred and that the error was a “ ‘ “fundamental error, something so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done.” ’ ” State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 , 300 S.E.2d 375, 378 (1983) (quoting United States v. McCaskill, 676 F.2d 995, 1002 (4th Cir.) (footnote omitted), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1018 , 74 L. | 3 | 2000–2018 |
State v. Lawrence
green
2 sentences2014The test for plain error “is unlikely to be satisfied . . . when evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming.” Id. at 516 , 723 S.E.2d at 333 ; State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 40 , 340 S.E.2d 80, 84 (1986) (holding that “the overwhelming evidence against the defendant prevented the error complained of from rising to the level of plain error”). 2014The test for plain error “is unlikely to be satisfied . . . when evidence of the defendant’s guilt is overwhelming.” Id. at 516 , 723 S.E.2d at 333 ; State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33, 40 , 340 S.E.2d 80, 84 (1986) (holding that “the overwhelming evidence against the defendant prevented the error complained of from rising to the level of plain error”). | 2 | 2014–2018 |
Kleinbart v. Superior Court for the District of Columbia
green
1 sentence2018Then the Court of Appeals set out the test for plain error as follows: Plain error occurs when the error is "so basic, so prejudicial, so lacking in its elements that justice cannot have been done [.]" State v. Odom , 307 N.C. 655 , 660, 300 S.E.2d 375 , 378 (1983) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. McCaskill , 676 F.2d 995 , 1002 (4th Cir. [ ] ) [, cert. denied , 459 U.S. 1018 , 103 S.Ct. 381 , 74 L.Ed.2d 513 (1982) ] ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2018"Under the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result." State v. Jordan , 333 N.C. 431 , 440, 426 S.E.2d 692 , 697 (1993) (citation omitted)." Id . (alteration in original). 2018"Under the plain error rule, defendant must convince this Court not only that there was error, but that absent the error, the jury probably would have reached a different result." State v. Jordan , 333 N.C. 431 , 440, 426 S.E.2d 692 , 697 (1993) (citation omitted)." Id . (alteration in original). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Joplin
green
2 sentences1990State v. Joplin, 318 N.C. 126 , 347 S.E.2d 421 (1986); State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33 , 340 S.E.2d 80 (1986). 1990State v. Joplin, 318 N.C. 126 , 347 S.E.2d 421 (1986); State v. Walker, 316 N.C. 33 , 340 S.E.2d 80 (1986). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.