Case law

State v. Raines

362 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2007

a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified … The instant case is clearly distinguishable. The report indicated that the racial epithet was used when defendant was holding a mop handle in the air and cursing at another inmate.

Martin v. Hunter

2 N.C. 495 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 15, 1816

It is manifest that a supreme court must be established. But whether it be equally obligatory to establish inferior courts, is a question of some difficulty. … On the other hand, if, as has been contended for, a discretion be vested in Congress to establish or not to establish inferior courts at their own pleasure, and Congress should not establish such courts, the appellate jurisdiction

State v. Chapman

359 N.C. 328 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 7, 2005

Trial judges, who are “experienced in supervising voir dire,” and who observe the prosecutor’s questions, statements, and demeanor firsthand, are well qualified to “decide if the circumstances concerning the prosecutor’s … Here, the statement of defendant to Detective Sinclair is clearly admissible as the statement of a party opponent. Id. § 8C-1, Rule 801(d).

State v. Cheek

351 N.C. 48 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1999

it clearly states so, are they clear that some other issues have to be unanimous? … PRESERVATION ISSUES Defendant raises nine issues which he concedes have been previously decided contrary to his position by this Court: (1) the trial court erred by failing to prohibit the State from death qualifying the

State v. Moses

350 N.C. 741 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 20, 1999

In Morgan , the United States Supreme Court adopted a “life qualifying” or “reverse-Witherspoon” standard for such cases, holding: [a] juror who will automatically vote for the death penalty in every case will fail in good … In each of these cases and in the instant case, the evidence established the same gun was used for both crimes. In State v.

State v. Campbell

359 N.C. 644 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2005

Brown was not qualified to testify as an expert in blood spatter interpretation, defendant asserts that Dr. … Defense counsel continued, “The evidence will show that the combination of the alcohol, the fatigue and fear left [defendant] unable to think clearly.”

Intersal, Inc. v. Hamilton

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 2019

agencies, enters into a valid contract, the State implicitly consents to be sued for damages on the contract in the event it breaches the contract[,]” and accordingly, the State cannot invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity … Moreover, plaintiffs “sought a declaratory judgment that the methodology for payment of Medicaid reimbursement claims established by DHHS violated Medicaid reimbursement rules.” Id.

Intersal, Inc. v. Hamilton

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 2019

agencies, enters into a valid contract, the State implicitly consents to be sued for damages on the contract in the event it breaches the contract[,]” and accordingly, the State cannot invoke the doctrine of sovereign immunity … Moreover, plaintiffs “sought a declaratory judgment that the methodology for payment of Medicaid reimbursement claims established by DHHS violated Medicaid reimbursement rules.” Id.

State v. Williams

355 N.C. 501 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 28, 2002

We conclude that defendant has failed to establish the second and third prongs of the Duren test. … Furthermore, this Court has held that “death-qualifying” a jury is constitutional under both the federal and state Constitutions. State v.

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. Kandies

342 N.C. 419 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 9, 1996

Accordingly, we need not address the question of whether defendant met his initial burden of showing discrimination and may proceed as if a prima facie case had been established. State v. … Defendant contends that Sergeant Wilson was not qualified to give this testimony because he was not a chemical expert.

State v. Taylor

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2021

TAYLOR 2021-NCSC-164 Opinion of the Court the First Amendment clearly in mind.” Id. at 707. … scienter requirements and First Amendment protections, noting the argument that defining a threats statute in a manner “not limited to threats made with the intent to harm[ ] will chill statements that do not qualify

State v. Williams

363 N.C. 689 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 11, 2009

We do not agree with defendant that his letter to the trial court “clearly constitutes a request for substitute counsel.” … The superior court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case was established when defendant was indicted for a felony, and jurisdiction over the penalty phase was established when defendant was convicted of a capital

State v. Lynch

340 N.C. 435 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 28, 1995

The photographs and clothing submitted during the sentencing proceeding established the severity and brutality of the attack on India. … death-qualification of the jury and by denying defendant’s motion for individual voir dire for a portion of the jury voir dire; (v) the trial court erred by permitting the prosecutor to use peremptory challenges to excuse qualified

State v. Singleton

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 2024

A rule straying from them “would be clearly oppressive, if not cruel, in its operation.” Id. … Arkansas, 333 U.S. 196, 201 (1948) (“No principle of procedural due process is more clearly established than that notice of the specific charge . . . .”); see also Jackson v.

State v. Gibbs

335 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1993

) excusal by the trial court of a prospective juror likely qualified to be seated. … His speech was not perfect English, but he was clearly understandable and able to convey his meaning quite clearly.”

Chambers v. Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2020

Today, the majority leaves behind both of these well-established legal principles. … Clearly there are other individuals who are able to challenge the practice, as the amended complaint states that there are “at least hundreds” of class members.

State v. Buchanan

330 N.C. 202 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1991

By his next assignment of error, defendant contends that his death sentence cannot be upheld because the trial court erroneously allowed the prosecutor to excuse a juror who was qualified to serve. … Clearly, in capital cases an individual jury poll is statutorily mandated and is not dependent upon defendant’s request or motion.

State v. Rodriguez

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 8, 2018

establishing opportunity,” citing State v. … In fact, our precedents clearly show the opposite.

State v. Brown

320 N.C. 179 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1987

Medical testimony established that Gerald died instantaneously of a gunshot wound to the head. … Criminal felonies are clearly and specifically classified in Chapter 14 of the General Statutes.