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.
6 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2011 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. Mooregreen2 sentences1986For example, on the point of common plan or scheme evidence, our Supreme Court has stated in two re cent cases that our trial courts should be cautious in allowing such evidence: . . . before this exception can be applied, there must be shown some unusual facts present in both crimes or particularly similar acts which would indicate that the same person committed both crimes. [Citations omitted.] To allow the admission of evidence of other crimes without such a showing of similarities would defeat the purpose of the general rule of exclusion. [Citations omitted.] State v. Moore, 309 N.C. 102 , 1986For example, on the point of common plan or scheme evidence, our Supreme Court has stated in two re cent cases that our trial courts should be cautious in allowing such evidence: . . . before this exception can be applied, there must be shown some unusual facts present in both crimes or particularly similar acts which would indicate that the same person committed both crimes. [Citations omitted.] To allow the admission of evidence of other crimes without such a showing of similarities would defeat the purpose of the general rule of exclusion. [Citations omitted.] State v. Moore, 309 N.C. 102 , | 2 | 3 |
City of Raleigh v. Edwardsgreen2 sentences2011App. 705, 708 , 486 S.E.2d 244, 245-46 (1997)(stating that “ ‘[ajppellate procedure is designed to eliminate the unnecessary delay and expense of repeated fragmentary appeals, and to present the whole case for determination in a single appeal from the final judgment’ ”) (quoting Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529 , 67 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1951)). 2011App. 705, 708 , 486 S.E.2d 244, 245-46 (1997)(stating that “ ‘[ajppellate procedure is designed to eliminate the unnecessary delay and expense of repeated fragmentary appeals, and to present the whole case for determination in a single appeal from the final judgment’ ”) (quoting Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529 , 67 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1951)). | 1 | 1 |
Hunter v. Huntergreen2 sentences2011The purpose of the general rule against allowing interlocutory appeals is the prevention of “fragmentary and premature appeals that unnecessarily delay the administration of justice].]” Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209 , 270 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1980) (citations omitted); see also Hunter v. Hunter, 126 N.C. 2011App. 705, 708 , 486 S.E.2d 244, 245-46 (1997)(stating that “ ‘[ajppellate procedure is designed to eliminate the unnecessary delay and expense of repeated fragmentary appeals, and to present the whole case for determination in a single appeal from the final judgment’ ”) (quoting Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528, 529 , 67 S.E.2d 669, 671 (1951)). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Goodinggreen2 sentences2011The purpose of the general rule against allowing interlocutory appeals is the prevention of “fragmentary and premature appeals that unnecessarily delay the administration of justice].]” Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209 , 270 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1980) (citations omitted); see also Hunter v. Hunter, 126 N.C. 2011The purpose of the general rule against allowing interlocutory appeals is the prevention of “fragmentary and premature appeals that unnecessarily delay the administration of justice].]” Bailey v. Gooding, 301 N.C. 205, 209 , 270 S.E.2d 431, 434 (1980) (citations omitted); see also Hunter v. Hunter, 126 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hoseygreen2 sentences2000State v. Hosey, 318 N.C. 330, 334 , 348 S.E.2d 805, 808 (1986). 2000State v. Hosey, 318 N.C. 330, 334 , 348 S.E.2d 805, 808 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hymangreen2 sentences1986See also State v. Hyman, 312 N.C. 601 , 324 S.E. 2d 264 (1985), where the court stated: “Evidence offered to show the existence of a common plan or scheme must be carefully examined to insure that it is relevant to show a common design and not merely to show the defendant’s propensity to commit the offense charged.” Since defendant denied that he was the offender in these cases and put the identity of the offender at issue, I would allow the evidence that defendant sold the informant “hot tools” only a few days prior to the commission of the offenses charged in these cases as being relevant to 1986See also State v. Hyman, 312 N.C. 601 , 324 S.E. 2d 264 (1985), where the court stated: “Evidence offered to show the existence of a common plan or scheme must be carefully examined to insure that it is relevant to show a common design and not merely to show the defendant’s propensity to commit the offense charged.” Since defendant denied that he was the offender in these cases and put the identity of the offender at issue, I would allow the evidence that defendant sold the informant “hot tools” only a few days prior to the commission of the offenses charged in these cases as being relevant to | 1 | 1 |
State v. McClaingreen2 sentences1983See State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171 , 81 S.E.2d 364 (1954). 1983See State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171 , 81 S.E.2d 364 (1954). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.