# State v. Huffstetler

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · November 6, 1984 · 312 N.C. 92

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578503

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. David Earl Huffstetler
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** November 6, 1984
- **Citations:** 312 N.C. 92; 322 S.E.2d 110; 1984 N.C. LEXIS 1799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Martin
- **Judges:** Mitchell, Martin, Exum, Frye
- **Cited by:** 117 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578503

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that because the information was “inherently reliable” and “reasonably relied upon” by other experts in the field there could be no violation of the Confrontation Clause (internal citations omitted)
- holding not prejudicial error to allow photographs to go into the jury room over defendant’s objection, in part because it was within court’s discretion to permit the jury to reexamine the pictures at length in the courtroom
- noting that this Court in State v. Barnett , 307 N.C. 608, 621, 300 S.E.2d 340, 347 (1983), in dicta, "interpreted [ N.C.G.S. § 15A-1233(b) ] to mean that the consent of all parties is required before the jury may take evidence to the jury room"

## Opinion text

*119 Justice MARTIN
concurring.
Except as herein set out, I concur in the well reasoned majority opinion and in the result reached. With respect to the ruling of the trial judge allowing the jury to take certain exhibits to the jury room, counsel did not brief or argue the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. 15A-1233(b). However, upon considering that issue, I find the statute constitutionally suspect as a violation of the doctrine of separation of powers. N.C. Const, art. I, § 6 and art. IV, § 1. The legislature cannot control the actions of the courts over what exhibits, properly admitted, can be carried by the jury into its jury room during its deliberations. Such action by the legislature is an unconstitutional intrusion and interference with the internal workings of the trial of a jury case. What evidence should or should not be taken to the jury room is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge and discretion of the trial judge on a case by case basis. The trial judge’s duty to seek after justice should not be hampered by requirements that evidence cannot be taken into the jury room except by consent of all counsel. It is the duty and responsibility of the trial judge to supervise and control a trial in order that injustice to any party may be prevented. State v. Spaulding, 288 N.C. 397 , 219 S.E. 2d 178 (1975), vacated on other grounds, 428 U.S. 904 , 49 L.Ed. 2d 1210 (1976). To this end the court has broad discretionary powers.
I repeat my views concerning the extension of the plain error doctrine to evidentiary matters. State v. Black, 308 N.C. 736 , 303 S.E. 2d 804 (1983) (Martin, J., concurring).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9578503. Public record. Not legal advice.