per se prejudice rule (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

per se prejudice rule in North Carolina

6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 1 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Knollgreen
nc · 1988 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018
2 sentences

2018Knoll , 322 N.C. at 545 , 369 S.E.2d at 564 ("Because of the change in North Carolina's driving while intoxicated laws, denial of access is no longer inherently prejudicial to a defendant's ability to gather evidence in support of his innocence in every driving while impaired case." (citation omitted) ). *77 Defendant's arguments fail to demonstrate "irreparable prejudice to the preparation of defendant's case." See Labinski , 188 N.C.

2018Knoll , 322 N.C. at 545 , 369 S.E.2d at 564 ("Because of the change in North Carolina's driving while intoxicated laws, denial of access is no longer inherently prejudicial to a defendant's ability to gather evidence in support of his innocence in every driving while impaired case." (citation omitted) ). *77 Defendant's arguments fail to demonstrate "irreparable prejudice to the preparation of defendant's case." See Labinski , 188 N.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
In Re DMM green
ncctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2007It should be noted that the case relied upon by the majority, In re D.M.M, ___ N.C.App. ___, 633 S.E.2d 715 (2006), there was a detailed analysis of the appellant's assertions of prejudice, apart from the discussion of the length of the delay. ___ N.C.App. at ___, 633 S.E.2d at 717-18 .

2007It should be noted that the case relied upon by the majority, In re D.M.M, ___ N.C.App. ___, 633 S.E.2d 715 (2006), there was a detailed analysis of the appellant's assertions of prejudice, apart from the discussion of the length of the delay. ___ N.C.App. at ___, 633 S.E.2d at 717-18 .

22007–2007
State v. Hill green
nc · 1971
2 sentences

1988The Court of Appeals further concluded that the per se prejudice rule of State v. Hill, 277 N.C. 547 , 178 S.E. 2d 462 (1971), *545 does not apply when a person is charged under N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1(a)(2) with driving “[a]fter having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.” See N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1(a)(2) (1983).

1988The Court of Appeals further concluded that the per se prejudice rule of State v. Hill, 277 N.C. 547 , 178 S.E. 2d 462 (1971), *545 does not apply when a person is charged under N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1(a)(2) with driving “[a]fter having consumed sufficient alcohol that he has, at any relevant time after the driving, an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.” See N.C.G.S. § 20-138.1(a)(2) (1983).

21987–1988
State v. Malachi green
nc · 2018
1 sentence

2024As Malachi does not in any way depart from our Supreme Court’s ruling in Harbison, see generally id., we are bound by our Supreme Court’s precedent and decline to revisit this issue.

12024–2024
State v. Labinski green
ncctapp · 2008
1 sentence

2018Knoll , 322 N.C. at 545 , 369 S.E.2d at 564 ("Because of the change in North Carolina's driving while intoxicated laws, denial of access is no longer inherently prejudicial to a defendant's ability to gather evidence in support of his innocence in every driving while impaired case." (citation omitted) ). *77 Defendant's arguments fail to demonstrate "irreparable prejudice to the preparation of defendant's case." See Labinski , 188 N.C.

12018–2018

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-534 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

WA 12 (2009–2025) NC 6 (1987–2024) PA 5 (2004–2026) NM 4 (1977–2010) MD 3 (2022–2025) IA 3 (2006–2016) FL 2 (2007–2022) CA 2 (1985–2007) IL 2 (2001–2001) HI 2 (2010–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check