6 North Carolina opinions name it 1 courts 1987–1996 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. Brogdengreen2 sentences1994Ed. 2d 841, 851-52 (1985); see also State v. Brogden, 334 N.C. 39, 42 , 430 S.E.2d 905, 907 (1993) (reiterating Witt standard). 1994Ed. 2d 841, 851-52 (1985); see also State v. Brogden, 334 N.C. 39, 42 , 430 S.E.2d 905, 907 (1993) (reiterating Witt standard). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Quesinberrygreen2 sentences1996See State v. Quesinberry, 319 N.C. 228, 235 , 354 S.E.2d 446, 450-51 (1987). 1996See State v. Quesinberry, 319 N.C. 228, 235 , 354 S.E.2d 446, 450-51 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
Lockhart v. McCreegreen2 sentences1994In addition, “[j]urors must be able to ‘ “state clearly that they are willing to temporarily set aside their own beliefs in deference to the rule of law.' ” Brogden, 334 N.C. at 43 , 430 S.E.2d at 907-908 (alteration in original) (quoting Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 176 , 90 L. 1994In addition, “[j]urors must be able to ‘ “state clearly that they are willing to temporarily set aside their own beliefs in deference to the rule of law.' ” Brogden, 334 N.C. at 43 , 430 S.E.2d at 907-908 (alteration in original) (quoting Lockhart v. McCree, 476 U.S. 162, 176 , 90 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1992See State v. Robinson, 327 N.C. 346, 358-59 , 395 S.E.2d 402, 409 (1990) (error under Witherspoon and Witt affects only the sentencing proceeding). 1992See State v. Robinson, 327 N.C. 346, 358-59 , 395 S.E.2d 402, 409 (1990) (error under Witherspoon and Witt affects only the sentencing proceeding). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Texasgreen2 sentences1987In Wainwright v. Witt, the United States Supreme Court set out the standard for excusing potential jurors from sitting on capital cases: That standard is whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 83 L.Ed. 2d at 851 -52 (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 581, 589 (1980)). *250 The trial judge’s questions in the present case correctly followed the Witt standard in determining that the prospective juror could not follow the la 1987In Wainwright v. Witt, the United States Supreme Court set out the standard for excusing potential jurors from sitting on capital cases: That standard is whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 83 L.Ed. 2d at 851 -52 (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 581, 589 (1980)). *250 The trial judge’s questions in the present case correctly followed the Witt standard in determining that the prospective juror could not follow the la | 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. Syriani
green
2 sentences1993State v. Syriani, 333 N.C. 350, 369-70 , 428 S.E.2d 118, 128 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 L.Ed.2d 341 (1993); see also State v. Brogden, 334 N.C. 39, 42 , 430 S.E.2d 905, 907 (1993) (reiterating Witt standard). 1993State v. Syriani, 333 N.C. 350, 369-70 , 428 S.E.2d 118, 128 , cert. denied, — U.S. —, 126 L.Ed.2d 341 (1993); see also State v. Brogden, 334 N.C. 39, 42 , 430 S.E.2d 905, 907 (1993) (reiterating Witt standard). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Wainwright v. Witt
green
2 sentences1987In Wainwright v. Witt, the United States Supreme Court set out the standard for excusing potential jurors from sitting on capital cases: That standard is whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 83 L.Ed. 2d at 851 -52 (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 581, 589 (1980)). *250 The trial judge’s questions in the present case correctly followed the Witt standard in determining that the prospective juror could not follow the la 1987In Wainwright v. Witt, the United States Supreme Court set out the standard for excusing potential jurors from sitting on capital cases: That standard is whether the juror’s views would “prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. at 424 , 83 L.Ed. 2d at 851 -52 (quoting Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 45 , 65 L.Ed. 2d 581, 589 (1980)). *250 The trial judge’s questions in the present case correctly followed the Witt standard in determining that the prospective juror could not follow the la | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.