holding that when defendant admitted he sold marijuana to agent and did not dispute fact that plastic bag contained marijuana, trial court did not err in prohibiting defendant from cross-examining agent on whether agent commingled evidence after sale
Summary of this case from State v. Bortone1984
holding that when defendant admitted he sold marijuana to agent and did not dispute fact that plastic bag contained marijuana, trial court did not err in prohibiting defendant from cross-examining agent on whether agent commingled evidence after sale
Summary of this case from State v. BortoneFull title:PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 1984
With respect to the trial court's actual ruling — prohibiting defendant from questioning Mr. Packer about…
State v. AlversonIt is the right and duty, however, of the trial judge to control examination and cross-examination of…