From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 6, 1989
325 N.C. 275 (N.C. 1989)

Summary

holding that one witness' testimony concerning the defendant's selling and using cocaine and another witness' testimony that he had previously sold cocaine for the defendant was properly admitted

Summary of this case from State v. Fields

Opinion


384 S.E.2d 526 (N.C. 1989) 325 N.C. 275 STATE of North Carolina v. Douglas MARSHALL. No. 277P89. Supreme Court of North Carolina. September 6, 1989

       Prior report: 94 N.C.App. 20, 380 S.E.2d 360.

       Linwood O. Foust, Atty. at Law, Charlotte, for Defendant.

       James F. Wyatt, III, Atty. at Law, Charlotte, for Defendant.

       Grayson G. Kelley, Asst. Atty. General, Raleigh, for the State.

       Peter S. Gilchrist, III, Dist. Atty.

       ORDER

       Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Attorney General; and upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by Defendant pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of September 1989."

       The Petition for Discretionary Review is:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of September 1989."


Summaries of

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Sep 6, 1989
325 N.C. 275 (N.C. 1989)

holding that one witness' testimony concerning the defendant's selling and using cocaine and another witness' testimony that he had previously sold cocaine for the defendant was properly admitted

Summary of this case from State v. Fields

stating that where "[a]ll of the information [in a supplemental report alleged to constitute material newly discovered evidence] was brought out through testimony of the officers at the pre-trial suppression hearing," there was no basis for reopening a suppression hearing pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-975(c)

Summary of this case from State v. Wade
Case details for

Petitions for Discretionary Review

Case Details

Full title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Sep 6, 1989

Citations

325 N.C. 275 (N.C. 1989)
325 N.C. 275

Citing Cases

State v. Williams

However, "[p]ossession is not an element of the offense of maintaining a dwelling for keeping and selling a…

State v. Wade

Finally, Defendant's trial counsel cross-examined the investigating officers concerning alleged…