6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2019 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. Browngreen2 sentences2018Defendant was indicted pursuant to the "manufacturing" prong of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1) based upon the following relevant language: "[O]n or about the 20 th day of January, 2015 in Wayne County, [Defendant] unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did manufacture a controlled substance in violation of [ N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1) ], by producing, preparing, propagating and processing [marijuana]." Our Supreme Court has held that proof of intent to distribute is required by portions of the "manufacturing" prong of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1), stating that "the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance 2018Defendant was indicted pursuant to the "manufacturing" prong of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1) based upon the following relevant language: "[O]n or about the 20 th day of January, 2015 in Wayne County, [Defendant] unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did manufacture a controlled substance in violation of [ N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1) ], by producing, preparing, propagating and processing [marijuana]." Our Supreme Court has held that proof of intent to distribute is required by portions of the "manufacturing" prong of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1), stating that "the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance | 1 | 1 |
State v. Burrowgreen1 sentence2012App. _, _, 721 S.E.2d 356, 360 (holding that the trial court committed plain error by admitting testimony and a laboratory report concerning the extent to which a particular substance was a controlled substance in violation of the Confrontation Clause given that, “[a]bsent the erroneous admission of the ... report and testimony regarding the report, no chemical analysis evidence was presented to the jury to show the pills [the defendant allegedly possessed] were oxycodone”), temporary stay allowed, _ N.C. _, 722 S.E.2d 209 (2012). 7 III. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chapmangreen2 sentences2011In deciding a defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine whether “substantial evidence” has been presented “in support of each element of the charged offense.” State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 374 , 611 S.E.2d 794, 827 (2005); see also State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 803-04 , 617 S.E.2d 271, 273-74 (2005); State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 412 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 161 L. 2011In deciding a defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine whether “substantial evidence” has been presented “in support of each element of the charged offense.” State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 374 , 611 S.E.2d 794, 827 (2005); see also State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 803-04 , 617 S.E.2d 271, 273-74 (2005); State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 412 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 161 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. McNeilgreen2 sentences2011In deciding a defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine whether “substantial evidence” has been presented “in support of each element of the charged offense.” State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 374 , 611 S.E.2d 794, 827 (2005); see also State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 803-04 , 617 S.E.2d 271, 273-74 (2005); State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 412 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 161 L. 2011In deciding a defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine whether “substantial evidence” has been presented “in support of each element of the charged offense.” State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 374 , 611 S.E.2d 794, 827 (2005); see also State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 803-04 , 617 S.E.2d 271, 273-74 (2005); State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 412 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 161 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2011In deciding a defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine whether “substantial evidence” has been presented “in support of each element of the charged offense.” State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 374 , 611 S.E.2d 794, 827 (2005); see also State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 803-04 , 617 S.E.2d 271, 273-74 (2005); State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 412 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 161 L. 2011In deciding a defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine whether “substantial evidence” has been presented “in support of each element of the charged offense.” State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 374 , 611 S.E.2d 794, 827 (2005); see also State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 803-04 , 617 S.E.2d 271, 273-74 (2005); State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 412 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 161 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2019Analysis In deciding State v. Miller (" Miller I "), this Court relied in part upon State v. Mitchell , 336 N.C. 22 , 442 S.E.2d 24 (1994), to reach the conclusion that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence tending to show Defendant was maintaining a dwelling for the keeping of a controlled substance in violation of N.C. 2019Analysis In deciding State v. Miller (" Miller I "), this Court relied in part upon State v. Mitchell , 336 N.C. 22 , 442 S.E.2d 24 (1994), to reach the conclusion that the State had failed to present sufficient evidence tending to show Defendant was maintaining a dwelling for the keeping of a controlled substance in violation of N.C. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Muncy
green
2 sentences2018Defendant was indicted pursuant to the "manufacturing" prong of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1) based upon the following relevant language: "[O]n or about the 20 th day of January, 2015 in Wayne County, [Defendant] unlawfully, willfully and feloniously did manufacture a controlled substance in violation of [ N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1) ], by producing, preparing, propagating and processing [marijuana]." Our Supreme Court has held that proof of intent to distribute is required by portions of the "manufacturing" prong of N.C.G.S. § 90-95(a)(1), stating that "the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance 2018App. 356 , 362, 339 S.E.2d 466 , 470 (1986) (citation omitted) (emphasis added) ("intent to distribute is not a necessary element of the offense of manufacturing a controlled substance unless the manufacturing activity is preparation or compounding "). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Reynolds
neutral
1 sentence2012App. _, _, 721 S.E.2d 356, 360 (holding that the trial court committed plain error by admitting testimony and a laboratory report concerning the extent to which a particular substance was a controlled substance in violation of the Confrontation Clause given that, “[a]bsent the erroneous admission of the ... report and testimony regarding the report, no chemical analysis evidence was presented to the jury to show the pills [the defendant allegedly possessed] were oxycodone”), temporary stay allowed, _ N.C. _, 722 S.E.2d 209 (2012). 7 III. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
McKeithan v. Lavan, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Dallas
green
1 sentence2011In deciding a defendant’s motion to dismiss a charge on the basis of insufficiency of the evidence, the trial court must determine whether “substantial evidence” has been presented “in support of each element of the charged offense.” State v. Chapman, 359 N.C. 328, 374 , 611 S.E.2d 794, 827 (2005); see also State v. McNeil, 359 N.C. 800, 803-04 , 617 S.E.2d 271, 273-74 (2005); State v. Garcia, 358 N.C. 382, 412 , 597 S.E.2d 724, 746 (2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1156 , 161 L. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Creason
green
2 sentences2002The defendant in State v. Creason, 313 N.C. 122 , 326 S.E.2d 24 (1985) was convicted of possession with intent to sell and deliver a controlled substance in violation of N.C. 2002The defendant in State v. Creason, 313 N.C. 122 , 326 S.E.2d 24 (1985) was convicted of possession with intent to sell and deliver a controlled substance in violation of N.C. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. McKinney
green
2 sentences1986All money, raw material, products, and equipment of any kind which are acquired, used, or intended for use, in selling, purchasing, manufacturing, compounding, processing, delivering, importing, or exporting a controlled substance in violation of the provisions of this Article[.]” In State v. McKinney, 36 N.C. 1986App. 614 , 244 S.E. 2d 455 (1978), this Court expressly rejected the notion that currency could be subject to forfeiture under N.C. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.