State v. Bell Even though defendant presented evidence that he unloaded the gun before he went into an insurance office, pointed the gun at the victim, and demanded money, there was also evidence that defendant was aware from almost the moment he left the insurance office that the police were watching him, he chose to flee, and he attempted to hide evidence by disposing of it in the woods.
State v. Gardner Where defendant has provided no explanation as to why post-conviction DNA testing would be material to his defense, he has failed to establish a condition precedent to the trial court’s authority to appoint counsel for him under G.S. § 15A-269.
State v. King Where defense counsel failed to timely review discovery provided by the state and so failed to find an expert in time for trial, the trial court did not err or violate defendant’s constitutional rights in denying his motion to continue in order to secure an expert witness for trial.
State v. Coleman Although defendant did not testify and did not request an additional instruction on guilty knowledge, since the state’s evidence included defendant’s repeated statements to police that he believed the box he was holding for someone else contained only marijuana and cocaine, the trial court plainly erred when it failed to instruct the jury that the state was required to prove that defendant knew what he possessed was heroin.
State v. Phillips Since defendant did not object at trial when the trial court referred to the prosecuting witness as “the victim,” he is only entitled to plain-error review. Considering the fact that our courts have on many occasions said that the use of the term “victim” in jury instructions is not an expression of opinion, and considering the horrifying facts of the assault in the instant case, we can discern no prejudicial error as a result of the trial court’s use of the word “victim” to identify the state’s prosecuting witness during its jury instructions.
State v. Hill Even though the carrying-a-concealed-weapon charge was based on a razor blade stuck to the underside of a table in a day room to which defendant’s access was non-exclusive and out of his control, he had regularly scheduled access to the day room, he had been seated at the table under which the blade was discovered on the same day it was discovered, the blade was one of two taken from a pencil sharpener, and the other blade was found in defendant’s cell.
State v. Leach : Although the defendant-prisoner alleged that his Mutual Agreement Parole Program contract required his release if he complied with the conditions set out in that document, he failed to attach the complete MAPP contract to his habeas application.
Redd v. WilcoHess, L.L.C. In a matter of first impression, we hold that G.S. § 1-181.2 supersedes Nunnery v. Baucom, 135 N.C. App. 556, 521 S.E.2d 479 (1999) on the issue of when a jury can have access to an exhibit during deliberations.
Johnson v. Forsyth County G.S. Chapter 126, including the N.C. Whistleblower Act, applies only to state employees and the local employees listed in G.S. § 126-5. Since county board of election employees are not included in the § 126-5 list, they are not covered by the Whistleblower Act.
Hinkle v. Hinkle Where the plaintiff-wife sought an unequal division of marital property, and where both parties raised issues under G.S. § 50-20(c) and presented evidence as to these issues, the trial court should have made findings of fact about the § 50-20(c) issues.
