60 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2025 13 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. McGradygreen2 sentences2025In each case, the trial court has discretion in determining how to address the three prongs of the reliability test.” Id. (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152-53 , 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1176 , 143 L. 2025In each case, the trial court has discretion in determining how to address the three prongs of the reliability test.” Id. (citation omitted). | 22 | 37 |
State v. McPhaulgreen2 sentences2022As we explained in State v. McPhaul, “[t]he precise nature of the reliability inquiry will vary from case to case depending on the nature of the proposed testimony.” 256 N.C. 2022As we explained in State v. McPhaul, “[t]he precise nature of the reliability inquiry will vary from case to case depending on the nature of the proposed testimony.” 256 N.C. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Odomgreen2 sentences2022“To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’” Id. (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 (1983)). 2022“To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error ‘had a probable impact on the jury’s finding that the defendant was guilty.’” Id. (quoting State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 660 (1983)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Lawrencegreen2 sentences2022CAMPBELL 2022-NCCOA-627 Opinion of the Court Defendant argues that Jackson did not testify to performing a “chemical analysis” and that Jackson’s opinion testimony did not satisfy the three-prong reliability test under Rule 702(a) of our Rules of Evidence. ¶ 11 Since our review is limited to plain error, we ask whether a “fundamental error occurred at trial.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012). 2022CAMPBELL 2022-NCCOA-627 Opinion of the Court Defendant argues that Jackson did not testify to performing a “chemical analysis” and that Jackson’s opinion testimony did not satisfy the three-prong reliability test under Rule 702(a) of our Rules of Evidence. ¶ 11 Since our review is limited to plain error, we ask whether a “fundamental error occurred at trial.” State v. Lawrence, 365 N.C. 506, 518 (2012). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Riddickgreen2 sentences2021THOMAS 2021-NCCOA-700 Opinion of the Court A. Standard of Review ¶ 30 “A trial court’s ruling as to the admissibility of proffered expert testimony will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Corbett, ¶ 51 (citations and quotations omitted). “[A] trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason and could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 893 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2016) (citing State v. Riddick, 315 N.C. 749, 756 , 340 S.E.2d 55, 59 (1986)). 2021THOMAS 2021-NCCOA-700 Opinion of the Court A. Standard of Review ¶ 30 “A trial court’s ruling as to the admissibility of proffered expert testimony will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Corbett, ¶ 51 (citations and quotations omitted). “[A] trial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its ruling was manifestly unsupported by reason and could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 893 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 11 (2016) (citing State v. Riddick, 315 N.C. 749, 756 , 340 S.E.2d 55, 59 (1986)). | 2 | 2 |
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichaelgreen2 sentences2025In each case, the trial court has discretion in determining how to address the three prongs of the reliability test.” Id. (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152-53 , 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1176 , 143 L. 2025In each case, the trial court has discretion in determining how to address the three prongs of the reliability test.” Id. (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152-53 , 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1176 , 143 L. | 1 | 7 |
State v. Helmsgreen2 sentences2021Defendant indicates the State’s expert and the trial judge did not address the topic, even though it was in Defendant’s motion, and thus “the State failed to meet its burden of establishing the reliability of the analysis.” ¶ 29 Defendant argues the alleged errors prejudiced him because “this error affected the live issue of whether [Defendant] was the person who gunned down Mr. Covington.” Defendant further argues prejudicial error is more likely on an expert issue because “of the heightened credence juries tend to give scientific evidence.” (Quoting State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578 , 582–83, 504 2021Defendant indicates the State’s expert and the trial judge did not address the topic, even though it was in Defendant’s motion, and thus “the State failed to meet its burden of establishing the reliability of the analysis.” ¶ 29 Defendant argues the alleged errors prejudiced him because “this error affected the live issue of whether [Defendant] was the person who gunned down Mr. Covington.” Defendant further argues prejudicial error is more likely on an expert issue because “of the heightened credence juries tend to give scientific evidence.” (Quoting State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578 , 582–83, 504 | 1 | 3 |
State v. Helmsgreen2 sentences2021Defendant indicates the State’s expert and the trial judge did not address the topic, even though it was in Defendant’s motion, and thus “the State failed to meet its burden of establishing the reliability of the analysis.” ¶ 29 Defendant argues the alleged errors prejudiced him because “this error affected the live issue of whether [Defendant] was the person who gunned down Mr. Covington.” Defendant further argues prejudicial error is more likely on an expert issue because “of the heightened credence juries tend to give scientific evidence.” (Quoting State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578 , 582–83, 504 2021Defendant indicates the State’s expert and the trial judge did not address the topic, even though it was in Defendant’s motion, and thus “the State failed to meet its burden of establishing the reliability of the analysis.” ¶ 29 Defendant argues the alleged errors prejudiced him because “this error affected the live issue of whether [Defendant] was the person who gunned down Mr. Covington.” Defendant further argues prejudicial error is more likely on an expert issue because “of the heightened credence juries tend to give scientific evidence.” (Quoting State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578 , 582–83, 504 | 1 | 3 |
State v. Kennedygreen2 sentences1998The psychologist's testimony went not to the credibility of the victim but to the reliability of the test itself. 320 N.C. at 31 , 357 S.E.2d at 366 . 1998The psychologist's testimony went not to the credibility of the victim but to the reliability of the test itself. 320 N.C. at 31 , 357 S.E.2d at 366 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Turbyfillgreen1 sentence2025Thus, once “the trial court makes a preliminary determination that the scientific or technical area underlying a qualified expert’s opinion is sufficiently reliable (and, of course, relevant), any lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the expert’s conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility.” State v. Turbyfill, 243 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coffeygreen2 sentences2025State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 281 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 56 (1990) (“Whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (citations omitted)); State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 890 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 9 (2016) (“In each case, the trial court has discretion in determining how to address the three prongs of the reliability test. 2025State v. Coffey, 326 N.C. 268, 281 , 389 S.E.2d 48, 56 (1990) (“Whether to exclude evidence under Rule 403 is a matter left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (citations omitted)); State v. McGrady, 368 N.C. 880, 890 , 787 S.E.2d 1, 9 (2016) (“In each case, the trial court has discretion in determining how to address the three prongs of the reliability test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Riggsgreen2 sentences2018E.g. , id. at 218 , 400 S.E.2d at 432 ("[T]he informant ... had made two prior controlled purchases of drugs and also previously had given accurate information which resulted in the arrest of a 'narcotics violator.' Such evidence established that informant's reliability."). 2018E.g. , id. at 218 , 400 S.E.2d at 432 ("[T]he informant ... had made two prior controlled purchases of drugs and also previously had given accurate information which resulted in the arrest of a 'narcotics violator.' Such evidence established that informant's reliability."). | 1 | 1 |
Federal Paper Board Co. v. Kamyr, Inc.green1 sentence2003See Federal Paperboard v. Kamyr, Inc., 101 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Ohio v. Robertsred2 sentences2000Ed. 2d at 653 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 65 L. 2000Ed. 2d at 653 (quoting Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 65 L. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2025These three requirements together make up the reliability inquiry discussed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 2020Prongs (a)(1), (2), and (3) together constitute the reliability inquiry discussed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). | 7 | 2010–2025 |
General Electric Co. v. Joiner
green
2 sentences2020Prongs (a)(1), (2), and (3) together constitute the reliability inquiry discussed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). 2020Prongs (a)(1), (2), and (3) together constitute the reliability inquiry discussed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). | 5 | 2016–2020 |
State v. Krider
neutral
2 sentences2022App. 303, 313 , 808 S.E.2d 294, 303 (2017), disc. rev. improvidently allowed, 371 N.C. 467 , 818 S.E.2d 102 (2018). “[A] trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. Godwin, 369 N.C. 605 , 610–11, 800 S.E.2d 47 , 51 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 68 The State cites to State v. Griffin to argue Wilson’s testimony was proper, and the trial court did not commit plain error with respect to the admission of her testimony. 268 N.C. 2022App. 303, 313 , 808 S.E.2d 294, 303 (2017), disc. rev. improvidently allowed, 371 N.C. 467 , 818 S.E.2d 102 (2018). “[A] trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” State v. Godwin, 369 N.C. 605 , 610–11, 800 S.E.2d 47 , 51 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 68 The State cites to State v. Griffin to argue Wilson’s testimony was proper, and the trial court did not commit plain error with respect to the admission of her testimony. 268 N.C. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd.
red
2 sentences2014We disagree. “[A] trial court’s ruling on the qualifications of an expert or the admissibility of an expert’s opinion will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 . 2011Defendant contends that this testimony failed to meet the reliability standard set out in State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 , 694 S.E.2d 738 (2010), and Howerton v. Arai Helmet Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 , 597 S.E.2d 674 (2004). | 2 | 2011–2014 |
In the Matter of Yocum
red
2 sentences2014We disagree. “[A] trial court’s ruling on the qualifications of an expert or the admissibility of an expert’s opinion will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Howerton, 358 N.C. at 458 , 597 S.E.2d at 686 . 2011Defendant contends that this testimony failed to meet the reliability standard set out in State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 , 694 S.E.2d 738 (2010), and Howerton v. Arai Helmet Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 , 597 S.E.2d 674 (2004). | 2 | 2011–2014 |
State v. Daughtridge
green
1 sentence2025Under Daughtridge, the “primary focus” of the reliability inquiry is “the witness’s principles and methodology,” not “the conclusions they generate.” Id. at 721 ; see McGrady, 368 N.C. at 888 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Turner
green
2 sentences2019Turner , 305 N.C. at 364 , 289 S.E.2d at 373 . 2019Turner , 305 N.C. at 364 , 289 S.E.2d at 373 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
City of Charlotte v. Combs
green
2 sentences2018Combs, 216 N.C. 2018Combs , 216 N.C. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. John W. Downing
green
1 sentence2017This ensures that "expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute." Id. at 591 , 113 S.Ct. 2786 (quoting United States v. Downing , 753 F.2d 1224 , 1242 (3d Cir. 1985) ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2013In rejecting the reliability standard the lower courts had applied in the case, the Supreme Court wrote in Crawford that “[e]ach of the courts also made assumptions that cross-examination might well have undermined.” Id. at 66 , 124 S. Ct. at 1372 . 2013In rejecting the reliability standard the lower courts had applied in the case, the Supreme Court wrote in Crawford that “[e]ach of the courts also made assumptions that cross-examination might well have undermined.” Id. at 66 , 124 S. Ct. at 1372 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Meadows
green
1 sentence2011App. at-, 687 S.E.2d at 308-09 ; see also State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578, 581 , 504 S.E.2d 293, 295 (1998) (holding that it was impermissible to allow *591 a lay witness to testify regarding the results of an HGN test, a field sobriety test, when the reliability of the test was not sufficiently established). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Ward
green
2 sentences2011Defendant contends that this testimony failed to meet the reliability standard set out in State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 , 694 S.E.2d 738 (2010), and Howerton v. Arai Helmet Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 , 597 S.E.2d 674 (2004). 2011Defendant contends that this testimony failed to meet the reliability standard set out in State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133 , 694 S.E.2d 738 (2010), and Howerton v. Arai Helmet Ltd., 358 N.C. 440 , 597 S.E.2d 674 (2004). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Idaho v. Wright
green
2 sentences2000The reliability requirement can be met in either of two ways: “where the hearsay statement ‘falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception,’ or where it is supported by ‘a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ” Id. at 816 , 111 L. 2000The reliability requirement can be met in either of two ways: “where the hearsay statement ‘falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception,’ or where it is supported by ‘a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness.’ ” Id. at 816 , 111 L. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Fletcher
green
2 sentences1995Indeed, the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Fletcher, 322 N.C. 415 , 368 S.E.2d 633 (1988), likened the use of dolls to “the use of photographs and other items to illustrate testimony.” With regard to opinion testimony on syndromes or profiles thought to be consistent with sexual abuse, our appellate courts have found such testimony to be proper subject matter for expert testimony only after much scrutiny and sufficient recognition in the scientific community, and have imposed strict limitations on its use. 1995Indeed, the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Fletcher, 322 N.C. 415 , 368 S.E.2d 633 (1988), likened the use of dolls to “the use of photographs and other items to illustrate testimony.” With regard to opinion testimony on syndromes or profiles thought to be consistent with sexual abuse, our appellate courts have found such testimony to be proper subject matter for expert testimony only after much scrutiny and sufficient recognition in the scientific community, and have imposed strict limitations on its use. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Chul Yun Kim
green
2 sentences1987Cf. State v. Kim, 318 N.C. 614 , 350 S.E. 2d 347 (1986); State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590 , 350 S.E. 2d 76 ; State v. Heath, 316 N.C. 337 , 341 S.E. 2d 565 . 1987Cf. State v. Kim, 318 N.C. 614 , 350 S.E. 2d 347 (1986); State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590 , 350 S.E. 2d 76 ; State v. Heath, 316 N.C. 337 , 341 S.E. 2d 565 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Aguallo green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Heath
green
2 sentences1987Cf. State v. Kim, 318 N.C. 614 , 350 S.E. 2d 347 (1986); State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590 , 350 S.E. 2d 76 ; State v. Heath, 316 N.C. 337 , 341 S.E. 2d 565 . 1987Cf. State v. Kim, 318 N.C. 614 , 350 S.E. 2d 347 (1986); State v. Aguallo, 318 N.C. 590 , 350 S.E. 2d 76 ; State v. Heath, 316 N.C. 337 , 341 S.E. 2d 565 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| State v. Franks green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.