Case law

State v. Rogers

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 17, 2025

Here, however, the Section 2703(d) Order clearly identified what was to be searched—CSLI related to defendant’s cell phone. … Carter was not clearly erroneous—it reflected a careful analysis of constitutional text, history, and policy considerations.

State v. Detter

298 N.C. 604 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1979

Of course, if a witness’ statement is discoverable under G.S. 15A-903(a), (b), (c) or (e), then it is discoverable under G.S. 15A-904 (a) due to the qualifying clause expressly contained in G.S. 15A-904(a). … The conversation between defendant and Christy clearly occurred during the investigatory stage of this case before the arrest was even made.

State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Edmisten

314 N.C. 122 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 13, 1985

Such a determination on the part of the Commission is clearly erroneous. … At the time of the hearing, Jackson Paper was the only Nantahala customer which would qualify for the proposed LIS rate schedule.

Jackson v. Corporation Commission

130 N.C. 385 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 19, 1902

However, we must decide the case as it is brought before us, and, as the questions have been clearly presented, we find no substantial difficulty in their determination. … A few quotations from the numerous decisions of that Court, rum ning through a long series of years, show how firmly the rule is established. In Bank v.

State v. Cummings

352 N.C. 600 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 6, 2000

Clearly, the State did not engage in prosecutorial misconduct by following statutory procedure in obtaining prison records. … Hattem regarding the basis of his opinions prior to the witness being qualified as an expert.

State v. Kelliher

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2022

Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that Kelliher “has clearly abandoned any assertion that he was convicted under the felony murder rule. But N.C. … Notably, the majority ignores the relevant state constitutional provisions which clearly define what is cruel or unusual punishment.

State v. Alexander

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 11, 2022

On 16 November 1993, during the process of selecting a death-qualified jury, defendant entered into a plea agreement with the State pursuant to which he agreed to plead guilty to second-degree murder … As this Court has clearly stated, remedial statutes such as N.C.G.S. § 15A-269 “should be construed liberally, in a manner which assures fulfillment of the beneficial goals, for which [they were] enacted and

State v. Augustine

359 N.C. 709 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2005

The trial court’s ruling is accorded deference on review and will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. Nicholson, 355 N.C. at 21-22 , 558 S.E.2d at 125 . … the charge conference here, counsel for defendant asked that the court give a portion of the “instruction from [N.C.P.I. — Crim.] 203.10 regarding [Autry’s] prior convictions” on the grounds that those convictions could qualify

State v. Payne

337 N.C. 505 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 9, 1994

Clearly we were referring to a judicial determination of insufficiency made by this Court, not the trial court. … We have held that by a “preponderance of the evidence” is the correct burden of proof for establishing the existence of mitigating circumstances.

State v. Robbins

319 N.C. 465 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1987

the state, or otherwise was a clearly interested witness, whether Abrams should be regarded as an interested witness was for the jury to resolve. … Minor variations in testimony are insufficient to establish that a witness is perjuring himself, State v.

State v. Brewer

325 N.C. 550 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1989

Although the Cotton case established that the general standard of relevancy under Rule 401 would be applied to cases such as this, it did not change the established policy that such evidence must point directly to the guilt … The excluded testimony was clearly relevant.

State v. Thompson

594 S.E.2d 195 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2004

Special Agent David Santora of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation was qualified at trial as an expert in firearm and toolmark identification. … In light of the above analysis, defendant's case is clearly distinguishable from those in which we have held the death penalty to be disproportionate.

Tillman v. Commercial Credit Loans, Inc.

362 N.C. 93 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 25, 2008

Clearly, this is not the proper analysis. … Further, the court concluded that the class action prohibition would not have the practical effect of immunizing the lenders because the arbitration agreement permitted the consumer to vindicate all of her substantive rights

State v. Hudson

331 N.C. 122 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 22, 1992

And they clearly know. Mr. GREESON: I don’t care. The COURT: They talked about it among themselves. Mr. GOODMAN: They all know. Mr. … Mayer had not been qualified as an expert.

State v. Bishop

346 N.C. 365 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 24, 1997

The note was relevant to establish a possible motive for the killing and was properly admitted into evidence. … Defendant argues that the court’s instruction failed to qualify the words “ingenuity of counsel” with the words “not legitimately warranted by the testimony.”

State v. Burr

341 N.C. 263 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 8, 1995

The Court went on to write, the killing of the infant was conscienceless, pitiless, and unnecessarily torturous to the victim when the facts tend to establish that the killing or when the facts tend to establish the killing … These cases are *315 clearly distinguishable from the present case on their facts. In State v.

State v. Sides

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2020

In our view, the facts before the trial court—when taken as a whole—were clearly sufficient to trigger the need for a competency hearing. … Substantial evidence which establishes a bona fide doubt as to a defendant’s competency may be established by considering “a defendant’s irrational behavior, his demeanor at trial, and any prior medical opinion on competence

State v. Beal

199 N.C. 278 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 20, 1930

The practice is now so firmly established as to admit of no questioning that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence is to be considered in its most favorable light for the prosecution. S. v. Rountree, 181 N. … It is not stated that the witness, if allowed to testify, would have qualified and given evidence as suggested. S. v. Steen, 185 N. C., 768 , 117 S. E., 793 . The exception is not sustained.

PHG Asheville, LLC v. City of Asheville

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 3, 2020

CITY OF ASHEVILLE Opinion of the Court As the record that is before us in this case clearly reflects, the trial court appropriately engaged in both de novo and whole record review … Dean, whose testimony is at issue in the case as it has been presented to us, were each qualified as experts in their respective fields. Both Mr. Crozier and Mr.

State v. Ward

338 N.C. 64 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1994

“Proof of a prior statement by a witness who heard it at second hand would clearly be inadmissible.” Id. § 159, at 528 n.411; see State v. … After being properly qualified as an expert in the field of forensic psychiatry, Dr.