Case law

State v. Jenkins

311 N.C. 194 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1984

The phrase “totality of the circumstances” as used in Edwards and Bradshaw clearly includes all circumstances material to a determination of whether the defendant engaged in a knowing, intelligent and valid waiver of the … Defendant next contends that the trial judge erred by permitting the State to “death qualify” the jury prior to the guilt phase of the trial.

State v. Smoak

213 N.C. 79 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1938

The admissibility of evidence of previous poisonings to show motive and scienter is most clearly brought out by the case of People v. Gosden, 56 Pac. (2d Ed.), 211 (Calif., 1936). … If be answers “Yes,” then tbe witness can of bis own accord qualify bis testimony as to wbat extent tbe character of tbe party attacked is good or bad.’ Clark, C. J., in Edwards v. Price, 162 N. C., 244 .

State v. . Degraff

113 N.C. 688 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1893

The single circumstance of pointing the pistol at the prisoner, in connection with the language of the witness, indicating that it was done only for the purpose of effecting the arrest, very clearly would not have authorized … His Honor held that the witness had been properly qualified as an expert, and the prisoner excepted.

Elmore v. . Byrd

180 N.C. 120 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1920

Badger qualified as executrix, and took possession of the property. It turned out that the property given her was of insufficient value to pay the debt. … It is evident the testator did not wish, nor did he intend, to devise land that did riot belong to him, and, therefore, it was that he used appropriate, and even technical, language to express his purpose clearly.

State v. Jones

322 N.C. 406 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1988

After qualifying as a fingerprint expert, Navarro testified that he compared defendant’s fingerprints to twelve latent fingerprint “lifts” found at the victim’s home. … The opinion of the other examiner thus necessarily forms a part of the basis for the opinion to which the witness testified, and it clearly was reasonable for an expert in the field of fingerprint identification to rely upon

Seward v. Receivers of Seaboard Air Line Railway

159 N.C. 241 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 22, 1912

Malice, or want of good faith, is established when it is shown that tbe matter published was false within tbe knowledge of tbe publisher; or malice may be established by showing a bad motive in making tbe publication, as … “Malice or want of good faith is established when it is shown that the matter published was false within the knowledge of the publisher; or malice may be established by showing a bad motive in making the publication, as that

State v. Green

305 N.C. 463 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 4, 1982

Webster, qualified as an expert witness in forensic odontology, testified that bite marks photographed on Mrs. Shaw were made by the defendant. Detective Sergeant E. E. … The evidence established that Mrs.

Commissioners v. . Boring

175 N.C. 105 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 21, 1918

should adopt the construction which is in accord with the organic law; but the principal does not justify a departure from the plain and natural significance of the words employed which the meaning and purpose of the law clearly … While the construction of public roads is a necessary expense, as has been so often decided, we held in the Lacy case that the establishment of a road system confined to a township or road district, and under its control

Baltzer v. . the State

104 N.C. 265 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1889

This provision constituted part of the Constitution as established in 1868, and gives this Court such jurisdiction, generally, of claims against the State. … for its sole benefit; surrendered them to the company, receiving in lieu for them part of its invalid bonds, and certain of its valid bonds, which latter it held and treated as its absolute property, and burned them, thus clearly

State v. Bryant

334 N.C. 333 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 30, 1993

Clearly, convicting a person of first-degree murder in violation of Cage meets the test of plain error. … Even where the evidence demonstrates a probability of guilt,-if it does not establish such guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, you must acquit the accused.

State v. Crockett

368 N.C. 717 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 18, 2016

[M]ere physical presence at a location is not the same as establishing a residence. … But because “address” is a statutory term, the question of whether a particular place could qualify as an “address” is a question of law to be resolved by a judge, not a jury.

Evans v. Diaz

333 N.C. 774 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 4, 1993

Substantively, the renunciation Act clearly contemplates that the renouncer has some property interest subject to being renounced. … Any qualified or nonqualified deferred compensation, employee benefit, retirement or death benefit, plan, fund, annuity, contract, policy, program or instrument, either funded or unfunded, which is established or maintained

State v. Boyd

311 N.C. 408 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 28, 1984

Clearly criminology is an area of “scientific, technical, [and] specialized knowledge.” … His testimony was directed toward explaining defendant’s conduct and establishing defendant’s motive for the murder.

Chaffin v. Manufacturing Co.

136 N.C. 364 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1904

They are given, as is said in our former opinion, not as any equivalent for the wrong but in recognition of the technical injury and to determine and establish the plaintiffs’ right. 1 Joyce on Damages, sec. 9. … But we think the error in this instruction more clearly appears when it is considered in connection with a subsequent instruction of the Court upon the question of damages.

Goode v. Barton

238 N.C. 492 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1953

By the law of New Jersey Young was immune from liability for Balbino’s negligence. … If what tbe *499 Court said in the first paragraph was not applicable to the facts, it did state the doctrine of sudden emergency in the second and third paragraphs clearly and fully as set forth in our decisions.

Moody v. Transylvania County

271 N.C. 384 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 20, 1967

In exercising such powers the municipal corporation’s authority to bind itself by contract is limited and it cannot contract any debt, except for necessary expenses, unless by vote of the majority of the qualified voters … The function of the writ is to compel the performance of a ministerial duty — not to establish a legal right, but to enforce one which has been established. Hayes v. Benton, 193 N.C. 379 , 137 S.E. 169 ; Wilkinson v.

Heaton v. City of Charlotte

277 N.C. 506 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1971

The obvious intent of the legislature is clearly stated in Section 2 of the amendatory act as follows: “It is the purpose and intent of this act to extend the protest provision of G.S. 160-176 to the owners of twenty per … There the Court stated that the qualifying word “immediately” gave the phrase “immediately adjacent” the meaning of “adjoining or with no space intervening.”

State v. Mitchell

283 N.C. 462 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1973

The evidence in the present case clearly indicates that the witness Parker through both study and experience had acquired such skill. This assignment is overruled. … It is binding in every sense, preventing the party who makes it from introducing evidence to dispute it, and relieving the opponent of the necessity of producing evidence to establish the admitted fact.

State v. Hamlette

302 N.C. 490 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1981

Clearly, the other prerequisites to competency contained in G.S. 8-51.1 and our case law were met. … It was clearly more than once and the last was within two days of his death. It appears that one time was “when he first got over there” — that is, when he was transferred to N.C. Memorial.

State v. . Choate

228 N.C. 491 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 25, 1948

State, the bill of indictment will be quashed, on motion of defendant made in apt time, it is held that when some of the testimony is competent and some incompetent, or some of the witnesses heard by the grand jury are qualified … Applying these principles, the evidence offered is clearly irrelevant, and incompetent, and the admission of it is error.