Case law

State v. Dew

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 29, 2021

We concluded that “the evidence clearly show[ed] that [the] defendant was not charged three times with the same offense for the same act but was charged for three separate and distinct acts.” … Building on the Court of Appeals’ jurisprudence, we now take the opportunity to provide examples but not an exclusive list to further explain what can qualify as a distinct interruption: a distinct

State v. Burgess

345 N.C. 372 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 10, 1997

The verdict sheet clearly indicates that the jury found defendant guilty of both premeditated and deliberate murder and felony murder. … Additionally, the Fair Sentencing Act 1 and our cases interpreting it establish that a conviction may not be aggravated by (1) prior convictions of other crimes which could have been joined for trial, (2) contemporaneous

Hyler v. GTE Products Co.

333 N.C. 258 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 12, 1993

Hence, he clearly is statutorily barred from reopening this claim for an award of future medical expenses. … These words clearly contemplate a termination of or change in an award previously made.

State v. Vestal

278 N.C. 561 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 12, 1971

Such evidence was clearly relevant to the question of motive for Pennisi’s murder. … The court’s finding that a witness is qualified as an expert will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence to show that, through study or experience, or both, he has acquired such skill that he is better qualified

N. State Deli, LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 2024

Government orders issued in response to COVID-19 forced covered establishments to suspend business operations. … A policyholder is entitled to coverage if they experience both a covered “risk” and a qualifying “loss.”

State v. Lane

365 N.C. 7 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 2011

Even before Edwards , North Carolina had established a similar framework through statute and precedent from this Court. … I wouldn’t be qualified to talk about — my expertise stops at the — I can — I can talk about what generally happens to the brain, what happens to the central nervous system under the influence and withdrawal of drugs.

Hammond v. . Schiff

100 N.C. 161 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1888

For it is lawful for a man to do what he will with his own, but this is qualified by the maxim that he shall so use his own as not to injure another's. … This exception relates to a conversation between McAden and Ahrens, who came with propositions from Schiff to the former, and what passed was clearly admissible.

State v. Benton

276 N.C. 641 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 12, 1970

Defendant’s- contention that the sentence of an accessory may not exceed that of the principal in murder in the second *659 degree is clearly refuted by the decision in State v. … As to the second contention, the rule is well established that "equal protection of the laws is not denied by a statute prescribing the punishment to be inflicted on a person convicted of crime unless it prescribes different

In re Martin

60 N.C. 153 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 1863

And by reason of the proviso, it did not embrace that portion of the judiciary establishment constituted of justices of the peace, nor any officer of the militia. … Moreover, the remission of duties, not clearly allowable to be remitted by law, necessarily devolves on others the duties remitted; which is contrary to public policy.

State v. Johnson

317 N.C. 193 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1986

The defendant next argues that the practice of “death qualifying” the jury prior to the guilt phase of his trial violates the federal constitution on the grounds that it results in the selection of a jury biased in favor … We held that evidence that the defendant had poisoned other individuals was admissible on the basis that “[s]uch evidence is clearly relevant in a prosecution for first-degree murder in that the state must prove a specific

State v. Clegg

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 11, 2022

If so, the defendant has established a Batson violation. … Jeffreys was also clearly erroneous. Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478.

State v. Hill

294 N.C. 320 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1978

The evidence, if anything, would be beneficial to the defendant, for it establishes that his fingerprints were not found on the cash register. … This evidence clearly shows that the defendant was the owner of the pistol in question.

State v. . David

222 N.C. 242 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 11, 1942

The body was delivered to me by the undertaking establishment in Kinston, Mr. Jarman representing said undertaking establishment. *Page 245 The body was at that time in the casket. … This is the rule established in Martin v.

Stephenson v. Bartlett

355 N.C. 354 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 30, 2002

This well established rule applies equally when a portion of a state constitution or any provision thereof is invalid as violative of the Constitution of the United States. … For example, the majority repeatedly qualifies the application of the “no county shall be divided” provision with words such as “whenever possible” or “to a large degree.”

State v. Benner

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 2022

Because defendant was entitled to jury instructions that clearly established his right to self-defense “regardless of the character of the assault,” I would hold that the trial court prejudicially … Because the two instructions are clearly distinct, I would hold that the error was clearly prejudicial.

State v. Montgomery

291 N.C. 235 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1976

These cases are clearly dispositive of the argument presented here and we, therefore, overrule this assignment of error. … On the contrary, it clearly appears that he was not in any way deprived of the free and calm use of all of his faculties.

State v. Clegg

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 11, 2022

VI (establishing the right to a jury in criminal trials); U.S. Const. amend VII (establishing the right to a jury in civil suits); Duncan v. … Jeffreys was also clearly erroneous. Snyder, 552 U.S. at 478.

State v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Co.

210 N.C. 742 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 25, 1936

Taking the charge as a whole, it clearly defines the offense. … “Beyond a reasonable doubt” was charged and clearly defined.

State v. Silhan

302 N.C. 223 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 4, 1981

Clearly this murder constituted a “conscienceless” and “pitiless” crime which was “unnecessarily torturous to the victim.” See State v. Goodman, supra. … Rev. 125 (1969); White, The Constitutional Invalidity of Convictions Imposed by Death-Qualified Juries, 58 Cornell L.

White v. Pate

308 N.C. 759 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1983

They further allege that their only adequate remedy is injunctive relief permanently enjoining the appointment of commissioners of the drainage district and ordering that commissioners henceforth be elected by the qualified … Although we have previously held that conferring the power to establish a drainage district upon the Clerk of Superior Court is not an invalid delegation of legislative power, Sanderlin v.