Case law

State v. Womble

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2021

In reviewing these statutes, we are guided by several well-established principles and precedents of statutory construction. … Federal law requires all states participating in CODIS to establish expungement provisions. 34 U.S.C. § 12592 (d)(2)(A) (2018). 34 U.S.C. § 12592 does not specify the specific procedure states must establish

Craven v. Chambers

56 N.C. App. 151 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 2, 1982

Having properly qualified Dr. Rose as an expert in the field of psychiatry, it was error for the trial court to sustain defendant’s objections to plaintiff’s cause and effect questions which sought Dr. … We are clearly bound by this Court’s holding in Jarvis v. Saunders, 34 N.C. App. 283 , 237 S.E. 2d 865 (1977).

Department of Transportation v. Blevins

194 N.C. App. 637 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 6, 2009

“Admission of evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and may be disturbed on appeal only where an abuse of such discretion is clearly shown.” Cameron v. Merisel Props., Inc., 187 N.C. … (2) Is the witness testifying at trial qualified as an expert in that area of testimony? (3) Is the expert’s testimony relevant?” Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 N.C. 440, 458 , 597 S.E.2d 674, 686 (2004).

State v. Spicer

50 N.C. App. 214 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 6, 1981

The witness may amplify or qualify his answers to the latter question with regard to specific virtues or vices of the party but counsel offering the witness may not suggest that the witness do so. State v. … Such evidence was clearly sufficient to overcome defendants’ motions of nonsuit and to justify the jury’s verdict of guilty of second degree murder. This assignment is without merit and is overruled.

State v. Suddreth

105 N.C. App. 122 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 21, 1992

She told the court the defendant wanted to establish a more serious relationship, but she was interested only in being friends. … The standard for admitting such testimony was spelled out in Knox : Expert testimony is properly admissible when it “can assist the jury to draw certain inferences from facts because the expert is better qualified.”

State v. Miller

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 20, 2024

Because opioids like hydrocodone “qualify as an opiate within the meaning of the statute,” see Garrett, 277 N.C. … Legislative revision of law clearly established by judicial opinion ought to be by express language or by unavoidably implied contradiction. ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A.

In re: L.C.

253 N.C. App. 67 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 2017

It is well established that “[t]his Fifth Amendment protection extends to civil proceedings.” Id. at 829, 785 S.E.2d at 925 (citation omitted). … For that reason, a voluntary witness cannot claim an immunity from cross-examination on the matters he has himself put in dispute.

State v. Barthel

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2025

His words do not qualify as fighting words because there was “no likelihood” that Commissioner Turbyfill “would make an immediate violent response.” Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518, 528 (1972). … The evidence does not establish whether she even attended the meeting, but giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference, we assume that she did.

State v. Holmes

120 N.C. App. 54 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1995

The trial court also clearly marked the dividing line between Cleo Spears’ initial testimony relating to the conspiracy period and his subsequent testimony offered on the issue of Michael’s separate offenses by providing … However, “[t]he law is well established regarding the admissibility of statements by co-conspirators.

Linsenmayer v. Omni Homes, Inc.

193 N.C. App. 703 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 18, 2008

. § 1-569.7 (2007), which clearly requires a “motion” to be filed in the trial court requesting the court to order arbitration. … The arbitrator was bound by law to treble the damages and was not required to make findings already established by the trial court.

State ex rel. Utilities Commission v. Conservation Council

64 N.C. App. 266 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1983

. § 62-133 (b) (1982) a requirement that utilities set a definite completion date for new projects before they qualify as construction work in progress. … But the Commission does satisfy the need under G.S. 62-79(a) “to enable the court on appeal to determine the controverted questions” since appellants’ arguments were clearly summarized and rejected.

State v. Worley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2019

Impermissible Vouching It is well settled that an expert witness’s “opinion that . . . children were sexually abused [is] clearly admissible,” but an “opinion that . . . children were sexually abused by [a] defendant … The unique nature of these offenses “make[s] [experts] better qualified than the jury to form an opinion as to the characteristics of abused children.” Id. Dr.

Singleton v. N.C. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 21, 2022

particularly qualified for the purpose. … ¶ 44 While counsel for Defendants clearly and correctly admitted the CON statutes are restrictive, anti-competitive, and create monopolistic policies and powers to the holder, and Plaintiffs correctly

Geer v. Geer

84 N.C. App. 471 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1987

All the exhibits upon which defendant relies to establish these itemized amounts were submitted to the court and marked as defendant’s exhibits. … Ap *479 pellate review is thus limited to a determination of whether the court, in arriving at a value, clearly abused its discretion. See id.

State v. Wilkins

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 17, 2024

Sheriffs’ offices are required to submit a yearly report to the Division setting forth which of its justice officers completed annual training and, if applicable, whether they qualified to carry a firearm for that year. … “It is well-established that the issue of a court’s jurisdiction over a matter may be raised at any time, even -8-  STATE V.

Joyner v. Bowen

203 N.C. App. 372 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2010

These exhibits establish that Joyner transferred title to the Blazer Bay boat and Load trailer to defendant. … These findings of fact clearly are supported by competent evidence because there is no variance between the findings of fact and plaintiff's exhibits.

In re McDonald

72 N.C. App. 234 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 15, 1985

Stack was better qualified than the trial court to form an opinion as to the respondents’ parenting abilities. This assignment of error is overruled. … Clearly, it was not improper for the trial court to consider Judge Jones’ order, and incorporate that prior order into the orders terminating respondents’ parental rights.

State v. Allen

265 N.C. App. 480 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 21, 2019

court determined Montes was unavailable pursuant to Rule 804(a)(5), which permits statements to be introduced at trial in lieu of live testimony if: (1) the declarant is unavailable as a witness, and (2) the statement qualifies … In accord with these courts, we hold the trial court correctly determined that the State was required to establish forfeiture by wrongdoing pursuant to the preponderance of the evidence standard.

State v. Morrison

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 4, 2020

Mortenson was driving the truck that was hit by multiple .22 caliber projectiles, fired by Defendant, the State established Mr. Mortenson’s first- hand knowledge of the shooting incident. … Mortenson’s presence at the scene of the crime qualified him to present his personal perception of the event, including his perception of the gunfire. Mr.

Newcomb v. County of Carteret

207 N.C. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 2010

According to well-established North Carolina law, riparian owners have “a qualified property in the water frontage belonging, by nature, to their land, the chief advantage growing out of the appurtenant estate in the submerged … Plaintiffs’ reading of the 19 October 1956 easement ignores the presence of language clearly establishing that the construction of Marshallberg Harbor was intended to serve public, rather than private, interests.