In all criminal actions, hearings and investigations it shall be lawful for the defendant in any such action to make affidavit before the clerk of the superior court of the county in which said action is pending, that it is important for the defense that he have the testimony of any person, whose name must be given, and that such person is so infirm, or otherwise physically incapacitated, or nonresident of this State, that he cannot procure his attendance at the trial or hearing of said cause. Upon the filing of such affidavit, it shall be the duty of the clerk to appoint some responsible person to take the deposition of such witness, which deposition may be read in the trial of such criminal action under the same rules as now apply by law to depositions in civil actions: provided, that the district attorney or prosecuting attorney of the district, county or town in which such action is pending have 10 days' notice of the taking of such deposition, who may appear in person or by representative to conduct the cross-examination of such witness. (Code, s. 1357; 1891, c. 522; 1893, c. 80; Rev., s. 1652; 1915, c. 251; C.S., s. 1812; 1971, c. 381, s. 6; 1973, c. 47, s. 2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases, 1972–2017 · leading case:
State v. Clonts, 802 S.E.2d 531 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Clonts, 802 S.E.2d 531 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 8× “This privilege is extended to the defendant in certain cases [ N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-74 ], but it may not be exercised by the State as a matter of right.”
State v. Barfield, 259 S.E.2d 510 (N.C. 1979).
· cites it 2× “G.S. § 8-74. One of the specific grounds upon which a deposition may be taken and offered into evidence at a criminal trial is such an infirmity or physical incapacity on the part of a witness that the defendant is unable to procure his attendance at trial.”
State v. Hoffman, 190 S.E.2d 842 (N.C. 1972).
· cites it 6× “After hearing the motion, Judge Godwin entered an order in which he found, in addition to the facts set out in the preceding paragraph, that the State now proposed to call, inter alia, Mesdames Stocks, Barfield, Moore and Croombs; that defendant's motion before Judge Cohoon was…”
City of Asheville v. Woodberry Assocs., Ltd., 442 S.E.2d 328 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
“§ 8-74(d). The State has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over all “land-disturbing activities” which are: (1) Conducted by the State; (2) Conducted by the United States; (3) Conducted by persons having the power of eminent domain; (4) Conducted by local governments; or (5)…”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-74(d): 1 case
City of Asheville v. Woodberry Assocs., Ltd., 442 S.E.2d 328 (N.C. Ct. App. 1994).
“§ 8-74(d). The State has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over all “land-disturbing activities” which are: (1) Conducted by the State; (2) Conducted by the United States; (3) Conducted by persons having the power of eminent domain; (4) Conducted by local governments; or (5)…”
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.