Summary
stating that “timeliness of curative instructions is a factor in deciding whether the instruction did in fact cure any error”
Summary of this case from State v. EvansOpinion
2000
From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
Disposition of Petitions for Discretionary Review
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 2000
351 N.C. 644 (N.C. 2000)
Summaries of
Disposition of Petitions for Discretionary Review
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jan 1, 2000
351 N.C. 644 (N.C. 2000)
stating that “timeliness of curative instructions is a factor in deciding whether the instruction did in fact cure any error”
Summary of this case from State v. Evansnoting that admitting a codefendant's statement was not prejudicial error since evidence against defendant was overwhelming even without the admission of codefendant's statement
Summary of this case from State v. Brownresentencing required when trial court imposed sixty months' supervised probation on a felon sentenced to intermediate punishment without finding that the extended period of probation was necessary
Summary of this case from State v. LambertCase details for
Disposition of Petitions for Discretionary Review
Case Details
Full title:DISPOSITION OF PETITIONS FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW
Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date published: Jan 1, 2000
Citations
351 N.C. 644 (N.C. 2000)
Citing Cases
State v. Wilson
In order to be relevant, the evidence must have a logical tendency to prove any fact that is of consequence…
State v. WigginsTo establish error on appeal, defendant "must show that the evidence so clearly establishes the fact in issue…