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 1 courts 1975–2022 2 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. Jacobsgreen2 sentences2022We are not persuaded by the State’s characterization of this omission as “a missing duplicative check mark . . . [that] does not render the form unclear or erroneous[.]” This assertion contradicts the explicit instructions set out—quite emphatically—on the face of the waiver form itself. ¶ 41 Accordingly, although a signed written waiver is generally “presumptive evidence that a defendant wishes to act as his or her own attorney[,]” id. at 703, 757 S.E.2d at 368 (emphasis added) (citation omitted), we conclude that the written waiver in the instant case is insufficient—notwithstanding the pres 2022We are not persuaded by the State’s characterization of this omission as “a missing duplicative check mark . . . [that] does not render the form unclear or erroneous[.]” This assertion contradicts the explicit instructions set out—quite emphatically—on the face of the waiver form itself. ¶ 41 Accordingly, although a signed written waiver is generally “presumptive evidence that a defendant wishes to act as his or her own attorney[,]” id. at 703, 757 S.E.2d at 368 (emphasis added) (citation omitted), we conclude that the written waiver in the instant case is insufficient—notwithstanding the pres | 2 | 2 |
State v. Warrengreen2 sentences2005State v. Warren, 82 N.C. 2005State v. Warren, 82 N.C.App. 84, 89 , 345 S.E.2d 437, 441 (1986). | 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. Whitfield
green
1 sentence2014State v. Whitfield, 170 N.C. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Strobel
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Lynch
green
2 sentences1975Although such a writing was necessary under former G.S. 7A-457 (a) to show waiver by an indigent defendant of his right to be represented by counsel, State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1 , 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971), this requirement was deleted for all except capital cases by the 1971 amendment to that statute. 1975Although such a writing was necessary under former G.S. 7A-457 (a) to show waiver by an indigent defendant of his right to be represented by counsel, State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1 , 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971), this requirement was deleted for all except capital cases by the 1971 amendment to that statute. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.