holding that trial court did not err in giving instruction that used the term “honest, substantial misgiving” but did not use “the combination of the terms found offensive by the Cage Court”
How later courts described this case
- holding that trial court did not err in giving instruction that used the term “honest, substantial misgiving” but did not use “the combination of the terms found offensive by the Cage Court”
- holding that trial court failed to exercise discretion even though it instructed jury to recall testimony
- judicially-made rule prohibiting a part-time prosecutor from representing a criminal defendant as defense counsel
- where the defendant negotiated plea arrangement with the State, but the arrangement was never judicially approved under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1023(b) (1988) and the State withdrew its proposal, there was no detrimental reliance
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*159 Justice WEBB
concurring.
I concur with the result reached by the majority but not with all its reasoning.
The majority says that it was harmless error to admit Dr. Mayer’s testimony that the defendant did not exhibit the symptoms of a person in a psychotic state. I would hold it was not error to admit this testimony. A witness may testify as to the mental condition or capacity of a person if he has had a chance to observe that person although the witness is not an expert in mental disorders. See 1 Henry Brandis, Jr., Brandis on North Carolina Evidence § 127 (3d ed. 1988).