announcing standard of review for alleged prejudicial errors not affecting constitutional rights
How later courts described this case
- announcing standard of review for alleged prejudicial errors not affecting constitutional rights
- analyzing an error under N.C.G.S. § 84-14, pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 15A-1443(a)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice EXUM
concurring.
For all the reasons given in the majority opinion taken together, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it precluded defense counsel from reading the passage from State v. Smith, 65 N.C. App. 684, 686-87 , 309 S.E. 2d 695, 696-97 (1983), rev’d, 311 N.C. 287 , 316 S.E. 2d 73 (1985). I would not hold (and it is not clear to me that the majority does hold) that any one of the reasons given, standing alone, would have been enough to sustain the action of the trial court. On this basis I concur in the result reached by the majority.