# State v. Cross

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · April 11, 1997 · 345 N.C. 713

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9602489

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Thomas Franklin Cross, Jr.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** April 11, 1997
- **Citations:** 345 N.C. 713; 483 S.E.2d 432; 1997 N.C. LEXIS 189
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Frye
- **Judges:** Frye, Lake
- **Cited by:** 45 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/9602489

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that where fingerprints were uniquely positioned on a car door, “the fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was sufficient to send this case to the jury”
- noting this Court “overlooked” the listed “additional pieces of corroborating evidence” after determining the “fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was sufficient”

## Opinion text

Justice Frye
concurring.
I find it unnecessary to decide, in this case, whether, as the majority states, “the fingerprint evidence, standing alone, was sufficient to *720 send this case to the jury.” As the opinion points out, other evidence tending to show that defendant was the perpetrator of the crimes charged in this case was introduced at trial. I agree with the majority that the fingerprint evidence, together with the corroborating evidence, was substantial evidence sufficient to take the case to the jury and to sustain the verdicts in this case. Whether the fingerprint evidence, “standing alone,” was sufficient, substantial evidence to take the case to the jury against this defendant for first-degree kidnapping, common-law robbery, assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and nine counts of obtaining property by false pretenses is a question we need not decide today. Accordingly, I concur in the result reached by the majority of this Court, but not the reasoning.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9602489. Public record. Not legal advice.