Case law

State v. Rodriguez

371 N.C. 295 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 8, 2018

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

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. McCoy

303 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 5, 1981

Our analysis might well stop here; in order, however, to demonstrate clearly that no constitutional speedy trial violation has occurred we consider the other factors. … The legal principles governing a motion for dismissal at the close of all the evidence are well-established.

State v. Wiley

355 N.C. 592 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 28, 2002

Ed. 2d 841, 851 (1985), and jurors who are unable to articulate clearly their willingness to set aside their own beliefs on capital punishment and defer to the law may be excused for cause, State v. … the trial court erred in its instructions as to what each juror may consider with regard to the mitigating circumstances; (11) whether the trial court erred by denying defendant’s motion to prohibit the state from death-qualifying

State v. Taylor

362 N.C. 514 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 2008

It is well established, however, that “if the trial court merely instructs the jury disjunctively as to various alternative acts which will establish an element of the offense, the requirement of unanimity is satisfied.” … Here, the trial court clearly instructed the jury to consider each of the potential nonstatutory mitigating circumstances.

State v. Lee

335 N.C. 244 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 28, 1994

This established that a crime had been committed. The testimony as to the defendant's description of the crime was admissible. … Clearly, this statute only contemplates polling the jurors regarding their final recommendation.

State v. Nobles

350 N.C. 483 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 25, 1999

Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in excusing four prospective jurors for cause based on their answers to death-qualifying questions, thereby denying defendant his statutory and constitutional rights. … “It is well established that the admission of evidence without objection waives prior or subsequent objection to the admission of evidence of a similar character.” State v.

Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc.

301 N.C. 561 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 6, 1981

The well-established rule of law is that “an appeal from a judgment rendered in the Superior Court suspends all further proceedings in the cause in that court, pending the appeal.” Harris v. … In so holding, the Court clearly limited the individual privacy claim under the fifth amendment to those cases which involved compelled testimonial incrimination.

Baptist Female University v. Borden

132 N.C. 476 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 28, 1903

Borden, duly qualified. (4) That since the death of W. T. Faircloth and the probate of said will, bis widow E. E. … It is well settled that unless it clearly appears from the will that it is the intention of the testator to charge the payment of debts upon his real estate, the law will not do so.

University v. . Borden

132 N.C. 477 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 28, 1903

Borden, duly qualified. (4) That since the death of W. T. Faircloth and the probate of said will his widow, E. E. … It is well settled that unless it clearly appears from the will that it is the intention of the testator to charge the payment of debts upon his real estate, the law will not do so.

State v. Walls

342 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1995

Defendant argues “this numerical showing establishes a prima facie Batson violation.” We cannot agree. … Brown’s qualified answer, and the lack of other supporting testimony from those in a position to have personal knowledge, we conclude that no credible evidence supported the submission of this proposed circumstance.

State v. Bell

359 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 7, 2004

The first step requires the defendant to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Id. at 94 , 90 L. Ed. 2d at 86-87 . … A witness’s “recorded statement, knowingly given in response to structured police questioning, qualifies under any conceivable definition.” Id.

State v. . Beal

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

was shot down at the same time and found lying with the officers would seem to indicate that he, and not George Carter who sustained no injuries, was the guard with the officers in the line of fire; leastwise the evidence clearly … 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.

State v. Phillips

365 N.C. 103 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2011

While this statutory and regulatory framework seeks to provide representation as expeditiously as possible to potential capital defendants who qualify for appointed counsel, it does not alter the procedure this Court previously … We concluded that the witness’s testimony that the defendant was “going to kill everybody” was an instantaneous conclusion as to the defendant’s condition and state of mind and therefore “clearly” admissible lay testimony

State v. Fletcher

354 N.C. 455 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2001

Furthermore, the trial jury found that defendant committed the murder in the course of a burglary, thus establishing his motivation for this senseless killing. … As discussed above, Bondurant is clearly distinguishable.

State v. Daw

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 23, 2024

I do not assert that textualism accurately represents what this Court’s precedents establish as the principal or sole method of statutory and constitutional interpretation. … Although habeas undoubtedly is of “general importance,” it does not follow that a mooted habeas issue automatically qualifies for review under the public interest exception.

State v. Woolard

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 2023

And without a “statute clearly conferring that right,” the State here could not challenge the district court’s ruling. State v. Harrell, 279 N.C. 464, 466 (1971) (quoting State v. Vaughan, 268 N.C. 105, 108 (1966)). … Godwin, 369 N.C. 604, 612–13 (2017) (allowing an officer, properly qualified as an expert, to testify about HGN tests). Any single fact alone may not establish probable cause.

State v. Price

326 N.C. 56 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1990

It is well established that the identity of a caller may be established by testimony that the witness recognized the caller’s voice. State v. Rinck, 303 N.C. 551, 568 , 280 S.E.2d 912, 924 (1981); State v. … We see no distinction of any significance between the two qualifiers; there can be no question that any such nuance was similarly lost on the jury.

Value Health Sols., Inc. v. Pharm. Rsch. Assocs., Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2023

Evidence in the record establishes that in January 2017 an amendment framework was again shared internally at PRA. … If PRA is transferring title by allowing a third party to use the software, that transaction would qualify as an External Sale.

State v. Daniels

337 N.C. 243 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 25, 1994

The State, however, has established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. … N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 provides that a witness qualified as an expert may testify in the form of an opinion if it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence.