Case law

State v. Robinson

823 S.E.2d 695 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2019

Examples of exigencies that may qualify as sufficient for a warrant exception include the probable destruction of evidence such as a controlled substance. State v. Nowell , 144 N.C. … Counsel for Defendant objected, argued Defendant was "clearly under arrest," based on being handcuffed and not being free to leave. He also stated no Miranda warnings had been given.

Atl. Coast Props., Inc. v. Saunders

243 N.C. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 2015

And the response is a statement by a party-opponent, Respondent Edna Winslow, manifesting her adoption or belief in the truth of her father’s statement, thus qualifying it under one of the most fundamental and commonly invoked … great number of years, without claim from another, having right and under no disability to assert it, becomes evidence of a title to such a sole enjoyment; and this not because it clearly

Hall v. Wilmington Health

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2022

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). … That out-of-state deposition clearly presented different challenges than a deposition of a witness in North Carolina.

Barnes v. Hendrick Auto.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 21, 2014

It is reasonable to admit the occurrence of an on-the-job incident, but deny for other reasons the existence of a right to compensation, as was clearly the case here. … In this case, the MSA clearly stated that Defendants reasonably denied Plaintiff’s claim for compensation.

State v. Khouri

214 N.C. App. 389 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2011

Defendant notes that the “acts must be sufficiently similar as to logically establish a common plan or scheme to commit the offense charged, not merely to show the defendant’s character or propensity to commit a like crime … Moore was not qualified as an expert, but that Dr. Moore’s testimony went to the credibility of Tina. An expert witness may not testify as to the credibility of a witness. State v.

State v. Johnson

164 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 4, 2004

Storey testified that there were three black males in the vehicle, but he could not clearly see any of them except for the man in the front passenger seat, whom he later identified in a photo lineup as Elliot Wilds. Ms. … , qualified as an excited utterance and therefore, should have been admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Beasley v. Beasley

259 N.C. App. 735 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2018

The order for attorney’s fees contains detailed findings of fact, see Section I, supra, which clearly establish and support the trial court’s conclusion of law that defendant is a dependent spouse with insufficient means … Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 207, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978).

Davidovic v. Allbound Carrier, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 2025

Without it, drivers are not legally qualified to drive interstate. … By the plain language of the statute—“licensed by the United States Department of Transportation”—the legislature clearly intended this to mean a USDOT Number, and not merely a CDL issued by a state governmental agency.

State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 3, 2023

Waiver of the right to counsel and election to proceed pro se must be expressed clearly and unequivocally. … All of these attorneys are well qualified and the only conflicts these attorneys had, with the exception of Mr.

Hayner v. Town of Montreat, N.C.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2025

That said, an expert witness may be “qualified by virtue 2 A footnote in Petitioner’s brief concedes, “Mr. … Moore, a twenty-one-year-career traffic and highway maintenance engineer, qualified as an expert.

State v. Cardenas

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2025

As our Court recently reiterated, “Rule 704 does allow admission of lay opinion evidence on ultimate issues, but to qualify for admission the opinion must be helpful to the jury. … Defense counsel objected on the ground that this question “clearly” called for “an expert opinion,” and the trial court held a brief bench conference regarding the admissibility of Det.

Clark v. Clark

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2021

The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults,  CLARK V. … ¶ 55 Plaintiff testified a third party sent Plaintiff the Facebook advertisement, establishing that the ad was indeed published.

State v. Romano

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 2019

ROMANO Opinion of the Court attempt to establish a prima facie case.’ ” State v. Fowler, 197 N.C. App. 1, 28-29, 676 S.E.2d 523, 545 (2009) (quoting State v. Edwards, 185 N.C. … ROMANO Opinion of the Court reports created for treatment purposes” are not testimonial in nature).3 Furthermore, medical records may qualify as business records, State v.

State v. Lopez

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2015

To show that an error was fundamental, a defendant must establish prejudice—that, after examination of the entire record, the error had a probable impact on the jury's … In sum, the detectives’ questions were clearly relevant. - 13 -  STATE V.

Clark v. Clark

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 7, 2021

Ellington’s Testimony ¶ 24 Defendant Barrett contends the trial court erred “by admitting evidence and testimony from an expert witness who was not qualified as such.” We disagree. 1. … The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.

State v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 17, 2020

This principle is well established in North Carolina. … However, even on its face this language is not clearly a threat, much less a “true threat.”

State v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 17, 2020

This principle is well established in North Carolina. … However, even on its face this language is not clearly a threat, much less a “true threat.”

State v. Hewitt

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 2, 2025

Accordingly, the trial court correctly held Defendant established a prima facie case of discrimination. … Therefore, the trial court on remand did not clearly err in denying Defendant’s Batson objection.

Hall v. Wilmington Health

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2022

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). … That out-of-state deposition clearly presented different challenges than a deposition of a witness in North Carolina.

State v. Reid

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 2020

Under the trial court’s interpretation of newly discovered evidence, virtually any information not originally introduced at trial could qualify as newly discovered evidence, even though it could have been discovered through … Rule 803 of the North Carolina Rules of Evidence establishes exceptions to the general exclusion of hearsay evidence. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 803 (2019).