N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 14
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.30 (2026)

Verdict and judgment

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Oct. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 14 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) When an indictment charges a person with a felony offense of breaking and entering as provided by this Article and an indictment also charges that the person is a status offender, the defendant shall be tried for the principal offense of breaking and entering as provided by law. The indictment that the person is a status offender shall not be revealed to the jury unless the jury shall find that the defendant is guilty of the principal felony offense of breaking and entering with which the defendant is charged.

(b) If the jury finds the defendant guilty of the felony offense of breaking and entering, the bill of indictment charging the defendant as a status offender may be presented to the same jury. Except that the same jury may be used, the proceedings shall be as if the issue of status offender were a principal charge.

(c) If the jury finds that the defendant is a status offender, the trial judge shall enter judgment according to the provisions of this Article. If the jury finds that the defendant is not a status offender, the trial judge shall pronounce judgment on the principal felony offense of breaking and entering as provided by law. (2011-192, s. 3(a).)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2019–2019 · leading case: State v. King, 824 S.E.2d 920 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. King, 824 S.E.2d 920 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 14-7.30(b) (2017). In the instant case, defendant argues he was unfairly prejudiced because the intervening habitual felon trial exposed the jury to more of his prior convictions.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-7.30(b): 1 case
State v. King, 824 S.E.2d 920 (N.C. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 14-7.30(b) (2017). In the instant case, defendant argues he was unfairly prejudiced because the intervening habitual felon trial exposed the jury to more of his prior convictions.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.