Case law

State v. Locklear

363 N.C. 438 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 28, 2009

Here, there was clearly evidence to support each of the elements of premeditated and deliberate murder. … Such procedure sensibly avoids the needless burden of *463 capital proceedings for those defendants whose mental retardation is clearly and convincingly evident.

State v. Holmes

355 N.C. 719 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 28, 2002

Hardison’s testimony further establishes that the only weapon fired during the incident was the rifle. … However, the allegedly improper testimony served to establish only that the rifle was the weapon that caused Creech’s and Hardison’s injuries, a fact already established by the undisputed evidence.

State v. Larrimore

340 N.C. 119 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 5, 1995

The defendant contends this decision “clearly deprived Defendant Larrimore of a meaningful right to confront and discredit Mrs. McMillian.” … The defendant’s counsel clearly questioned the credibility of Detective Cartrette.

State v. Gillard

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 13, 2024

§ 15A-1055(b) (2023) (impact of grant of immunity on witness credibility). None of these instances apply in this case. … Ultimately the court left out the “sometimes” qualifier but demoted the circumstance to a non-peremptory instruction. This demotion was error.

State v. Fletcher

348 N.C. 292 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 9, 1998

We cannot say that the trial court’s determination was clearly erroneous-. State v. Lyons, 343 N.C. 1, 14 , 468 S.E.2d 204, 210 , cert, denied,-U.S.-, 136 L. Ed. 2d 167 (1996). … This prior murder qualified as the “prior criminal activity” for purposes of the other two murders. Id.

State v. . Williams

220 N.C. 445 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 10, 1941

Parlier, the duly elected, qualified and acting Sheriff of said County and State, (error) do hereby certify and return that I received the within summons on the 18th day of July, A.D., 1940, and that I personally served the … It is submitted, therefore, that the rule established in Irby v.

State v. Looney

294 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 24, 1978

its chief impetus in Dean Wigmore’s pronouncement: “No judge should ever let a sex offense charge go to the jury unless the female complainant’s social history and mental makeup have been examined and testified to by a qualified … Had the Franklin case arisen in this State, it would clearly have been proper for defense counsel in cross-examining the witness, or by offering through other witnesses evidence, otherwise admissible, to impeach her credibility

State ex rel. N.C. Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Indus. Grp. for Fair Util. Rates III

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 22, 2026

applicable, a corresponding amount from residential customers through the rider established by the Commission”). … Such selectivity is clearly arbitrary.

State ex rel. N.C. Utils. Comm'n v. Carolina Indus. Grp. for Fair Util. Rates II

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 22, 2026

applicable, a corresponding amount from residential customers through the rider established by the Commission”). … Such selectivity is clearly arbitrary.

State v. Westbrooks

345 N.C. 43 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1996

Johnny Davis and James Copeland testified under a grant of immunity. … The fact that these witnesses had made arrangements for charge reductions in exchange for their testimony was clearly before the jury, and defendant has demonstrated no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 11, 2014

Opinion of the Court NCDOT filed an answer and motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and raised the defense of sovereign immunity … restrictions on the use of property alleged to constitute a Procedure specifically states that the appellate court will not set aside a trial court’s findings of fact unless the higher court determines that the findings are “clearly

Barrino v. Radiator Specialty Co.

315 N.C. 500 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1986

The operative fact in establishing exclusiveness is that of actual coverage, not of election to claim compensation in a particular case. … We should not permit an employer to assume that no matter how egregious and deliberate his misconduct, the Workers' Compensation Act will allow him statutory immunity.

State v. Braxton

352 N.C. 158 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 13, 2000

The trial court ruled that Sparrow was not qualified to testify to prison conditions at the time of the murder. … By another assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred by failing to clearly instruct the jury that statutory mitigating circumstances have mitigating value.

Harper v. Hall

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 28, 2023

Thus, long before the 1776 constitution, the qualified voters in Carolina were electing their representatives in districts. … clearly for nonjudicial discretion[,]’ ” quoting Baker, 369 U.S. at 217 (alteration in original).

State v. Strudwick

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 29, 2021

In directing our attention to, and in placing such dispositive weight on, this clearly legitimate goal of the SBM program, the State has compellingly highlighted the safeguards which effectively narrow … Again, the fact that the State is acting pursuant to a legislative enactment presumed to be constitutional does not immunize that enactment from constitutional challenge.

Schroeder v. Oak Grove Farm Homeowners Ass'n

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 22, 2025

Such restrictions will not be aided or extended by implication or enlarged by construction to affect lands not specifically described, or to grant rights to persons in whose favor it is not clearly shown such restrictions … I also do not think we should adopt one universal definition of what is a “household pet,” resolving once and for all whether chickens qualify.4 What I am arguing is two-fold: (1) that we should not inch away from the conclusion

State v. Harris

338 N.C. 129 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1994

The evidence clearly showed and the court found that the defendant initiated further communication with the sheriff. … The psychologist’s report referred to medical opinions which he was not qualified to give. Mr. Merritt gave a copy of the report to the district attorney without discussing the matter with Mr. Medlin. Mr.

State v. Spivey

357 N.C. 114 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 2, 2003

In fact, in my view, the evidence presented clearly, if not graphically, illustrates two things: (1) that there are long-term, systemic problems in the Robeson County courts when it comes to bringing serious criminal cases … More specifically, in applying the four factors of the Barker test, I would *133 conclude: (1) that the four-plus year delay qualifies as “presumptively prejudicial,” Doggett v.

State v. Crump

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2020

However, defendant has clearly waived this constitutional argument. … The purpose of the jury selection is to make sure that the jurors are properly qualified to hear this trial. I contend this is not a stake-out question.

State v. Williams

339 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 30, 1994

We hold, therefore, that the trial court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous. As we have stated: “Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” … The prosecutor’s questions in the case at bar clearly satisfy the test outlined above.