7 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 2016–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. | ||
| 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. Godwin
green
2 sentences2025Our Supreme Court has stated that “with the 2006 amendment to Rule 702, our General Assembly clearly signaled that the results of the HGN test are sufficiently reliable to be admitted into the courts of this State.” State v. Godwin, 369 N.C. 604, 613 , 800 S.E.2d 47 , 53 (2017). 2021Theis testified that in his experience, HGN was accurate and a “very good tool to use for detection of impaired drivers.” Moreover, “our General Assembly [has] clearly signaled that the results of the HGN test are sufficiently reliable to be admitted into the courts of this State.” State v. Godwin, 369 N.C. 604, 613 , 800 S.E.2d 47 , 53 (2017) (citing N.C. | 5 | 2017–2025 |
State v. Helms
green
2 sentences2017BARKER Opinion of the Court Defendant relies heavily on the decision in State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578 , 504 S.E.2d 293 (1998), which, critically, was decided prior to the General Assembly’s amendments to Rule 702 in 2006 and 2011, as well as the decision in McGrady. 2017Defendant relies heavily on the decision in State v. Helms , 348 N.C. 578 , 504 S.E.2d 293 (1998), which, critically, was decided prior to the General Assembly's amendments to Rule 702 in 2006 and 2011, as well as the decision in McGrady . | 2 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Helms
green
2 sentences2017BARKER Opinion of the Court Defendant relies heavily on the decision in State v. Helms, 348 N.C. 578 , 504 S.E.2d 293 (1998), which, critically, was decided prior to the General Assembly’s amendments to Rule 702 in 2006 and 2011, as well as the decision in McGrady. 2017Defendant relies heavily on the decision in State v. Helms , 348 N.C. 578 , 504 S.E.2d 293 (1998), which, critically, was decided prior to the General Assembly's amendments to Rule 702 in 2006 and 2011, as well as the decision in McGrady . | 2 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Fincher
green
1 sentence2025After the 2011 amendment, our Court expanded on that ruling stating, “it is clear that the General Assembly has indicated its desire that Drug Recognition Evidence . . . be admitted, and that this type of evidence has already been determined to be reliable and based on sufficient facts and data.” Fincher, 259 N.C. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Smart
neutral
1 sentence2017This holding is similar to this Court's holding in Smart that the 2006 amendment to Rule 702 "obviat[ed] the need for the State to prove that the HGN testing method is sufficiently reliable." Smart , 195 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.