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.
7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2025 3 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. Reidgreen2 sentences2025Reid, 334 N.C. at 556 . 2024“When the State directly comments on a defendant’s failure to testify, the improper comment is not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction on a defendant’s right not to testify.” Id. at 556 , 434 S.E.2d at 197 (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Monkgreen2 sentences2002Ed. 2d 315 (1998); State v. Monk, 286 N.C. 509, 516-17 , 212 S.E.2d 125, 131-32 (1975) (requiring instruction to be “prompt and explicit”). 2002Ed. 2d 315 (1998); State v. Monk, 286 N.C. 509, 516-17 , 212 S.E.2d 125, 131-32 (1975) (requiring instruction to be “prompt and explicit”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Billingsgreen2 sentences1993Monk, 286 N.C. at 516-17 , 212 S.E.2d at 131-32 ; State v. Billings, 104 N.C.App. 362, 374 , 409 S.E.2d 707, 714 (1991). 1993Monk, 286 N.C. at 516-17 , 212 S.E.2d at 131-32 ; State v. Billings, 104 N.C.App. 362, 374 , 409 S.E.2d 707, 714 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Banksgreen2 sentences1993Cf. State v. Banks, 322 N.C. 753 , 370 S.E.2d 398 (1988) ("The mere reading of [authoritative legal texts such as the Fifth Amendment], which, if they are material to the case, ought to be permitted, is not the same as `comment or explanation,' which, in the case of a defendant's election not to testify, is prohibited.") When the State directly comments on a defendant's failure to testify, the improper comment is not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction on a defendant's right not to testify. 1993Cf. State v. Banks, 322 N.C. 753 , 370 S.E.2d 398 (1988) ("The mere reading of [authoritative legal texts such as the Fifth Amendment], which, if they are material to the case, ought to be permitted, is not the same as `comment or explanation,' which, in the case of a defendant's election not to testify, is prohibited.") When the State directly comments on a defendant's failure to testify, the improper comment is not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction on a defendant's right not to testify. | 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. McCall
green
1 sentence2024“When the State directly comments on a defendant’s failure to testify, the improper comment is not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction on a defendant’s right not to testify.” Id. at 556 , 434 S.E.2d at 197 (citations omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Bennett
green
2 sentences2019Consistent with the Court of Appeals’ emphasis in Hill regarding the importance of defense counsel’s opportunity at a trial’s sentencing phase to be heard following the trial court’s jury charge instruction on an aggravating factor in order to prevent a trial court’s failure to comply fully with the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1231(b) from reaching a level of material prejudice to a defendant’s case, and our recognition of this essential common trait which Hill shares with the instant case, this Court has likewise determined the cases of State v. Bennett, 308 N.C. 530 , 302 S.E.2d 786 (1983) 2019Consistent with the Court of Appeals’ emphasis in Hill regarding the importance of defense counsel’s opportunity at a trial’s sentencing phase to be heard following the trial court’s jury charge instruction on an aggravating factor in order to prevent a trial court’s failure to comply fully with the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1231(b) from reaching a level of material prejudice to a defendant’s case, and our recognition of this essential common trait which Hill shares with the instant case, this Court has likewise determined the cases of State v. Bennett, 308 N.C. 530 , 302 S.E.2d 786 (1983) | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Wiley
green
2 sentences2019Consistent with the Court of Appeals’ emphasis in Hill regarding the importance of defense counsel’s opportunity at a trial’s sentencing phase to be heard following the trial court’s jury charge instruction on an aggravating factor in order to prevent a trial court’s failure to comply fully with the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1231(b) from reaching a level of material prejudice to a defendant’s case, and our recognition of this essential common trait which Hill shares with the instant case, this Court has likewise determined the cases of State v. Bennett, 308 N.C. 530 , 302 S.E.2d 786 (1983) 2019Consistent with the Court of Appeals’ emphasis in Hill regarding the importance of defense counsel’s opportunity at a trial’s sentencing phase to be heard following the trial court’s jury charge instruction on an aggravating factor in order to prevent a trial court’s failure to comply fully with the provisions of N.C.G.S. § 15A- 1231(b) from reaching a level of material prejudice to a defendant’s case, and our recognition of this essential common trait which Hill shares with the instant case, this Court has likewise determined the cases of State v. Bennett, 308 N.C. 530 , 302 S.E.2d 786 (1983) | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Granberry v. Baptist Memorial Hospital
green
2 sentences2002State v. Gregory, 348 N.C. 203, 210 , 499 S.E.2d 753, 758 , (holding that prosecutor’s direct comments on a defendant’s failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendant’s right not to testify), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 952 , 142 L. 2002State v. Gregory, 348 N.C. 203, 210 , 499 S.E.2d 753, 758 , (holding that prosecutor’s direct comments on a defendant’s failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendant’s right not to testify), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 952 , 142 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Gregory
green
2 sentences2002State v. Gregory, 348 N.C. 203, 210 , 499 S.E.2d 753, 758 , (holding that prosecutor’s direct comments on a defendant’s failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendant’s right not to testify), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 952 , 142 L. 2002State v. Gregory, 348 N.C. 203, 210 , 499 S.E.2d 753, 758 , (holding that prosecutor’s direct comments on a defendant’s failure to testify were not cured by subsequent inclusion in the jury charge of an instruction regarding the defendant’s right not to testify), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 952 , 142 L. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Board of Transportation v. Jones
green
2 sentences1980While it is true that in the absence of a special request on benefits, the judge is not required to fully *484 define the meaning of general or special benefits or to distinguish between them, Board of Transportation v. Jones, 297 N.C. 436 , 255 S.E. 2d 185 (1979), it is equally true that the case does not involve, as the situation sub judice does, a total omission in the jury charge of an instruction on the law of benefits. 1980While it is true that in the absence of a special request on benefits, the judge is not required to fully *484 define the meaning of general or special benefits or to distinguish between them, Board of Transportation v. Jones, 297 N.C. 436 , 255 S.E. 2d 185 (1979), it is equally true that the case does not involve, as the situation sub judice does, a total omission in the jury charge of an instruction on the law of benefits. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.