noting that a witness identification based on a newspaper photo does "not result from state action [and therefore does] not violate defendant's due process rights"
How later courts described this case
- noting that a witness identification based on a newspaper photo does "not result from state action [and therefore does] not violate defendant's due process rights"
- even though defendant had notice that the State had evidence of blood samples seized in a warrantless search, defendant did not have notice of the State’s intent to use that evidence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice MITCHELL
concurring.
I continue to believe that the reasoning of Justice Martin’s dissent, which I joined, in State v. Belton, 318 N.C. 141 , 347 S.E. 2d 755 (1986), is correct and that Belton was wrongly decided on the double jeopardy question which is before us again in this case. As Belton represents the current status of the law on the question, however, I feel compelled to vote to apply it at this time. Because I am unable to say with certainty that the jury here used the sexual assault for which the defendant had not been indicted to supply the sexual assault element of the crime of first degree kidnapping, I am unable to distinguish this case from Belton with regard to the double jeopardy question. Accordingly, I concur in the opinion of the majority.