# State v. Huff

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · July 26, 1989 · 325 N.C. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588641

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Everett Randolph Huff
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** July 26, 1989
- **Citations:** 325 N.C. 1; 381 S.E.2d 635; 1989 N.C. LEXIS 369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Webb
- **Judges:** Meyer, Exum, Webb, Frye
- **Cited by:** 98 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated on other grounds by Spotted War Bonnet v. United States, 497 U.S. 1021 (1990).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588641

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- establishing that the right of a capital defendant to be present at all stages of his trial is guaranteed by Article I, section 23 of the Constitution of North Carolina, but holding that the harmless error standard applicable to errors under the Constitution of the United Stat…
- applying harmless error review to alleged violations of defendant’s nonwaivable right to be present at all stages of his capital trial

## Opinion text

Justice WEBB
concurring.
I concur in the result reached but I disagree with the majority reasoning that it was error for the court to allow the defendant to be removed from the courtroom during one stage of the trial. The majority has held this was harmless error. I would hold that it was not error.
I believe it should be obvious that a defendant in a capital case or any other case cannot be allowed to stop a trial by the disruptive tactics the defendant used in this case. I believe it would be better to place the decision on this actual reason than rationalizing it on some other ground.
I believe we should hold there is an exception to the rule that a defendant in a capital case cannot waive his right to be present at all stages of the proceedings. This exception should be that if a defendant becomes so disruptive that the trial cannot continue the defendant may be removed from the courtroom. Applying this exception to the case, there would be no error.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9588641. Public record. Not legal advice.