By David Donovan
Published: May 31,2013
Sure, there are rules at Department of Motor Vehicles hearings—but no North Carolina Rules of Evidence, now that the Court of Appeals has held that the long-memorized dictates of criminal trials don’t apply to civil revocation hearings. The court did not call the case a question of first impression, but it also did not cite any prior law controlling the issue.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: February 22,2013
Manning v. Anagnost At trial, plaintiff repeatedly attacked the defendant-doctor’s testimony that he had personally examined plaintiff’s decedent after she fell. By calling into question the doctor’s credibility, plaintiff opened the door for the doctor to present witnesses who testified as to his character for truthfulness.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: December 20,2012
State v. Randolph Although the state may not introduce evidence of a written confession unless that written statement bears certain indicia of voluntariness and accuracy, so long as oral statements are not obtained in violation of the Constitution, a defendant’s own statement is admissible when offered against him at trial as an exception to the hearsay rule. A police investigator could testify as to what defendant told him (prior to defendant’s assertion that he didn’t want to answer any more questions).
By Nicole Black, Dolan Media Newswires
Published: September 7,2012
Social media use has been mainstream for years now and for that reason, it is becoming increasingly common for the government to rely on evidence obtained through social media when investigating and prosecuting criminal activity.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 22,2012
State v. Davis Defendant’s writings, which he characterized as fictional, described nonconsensual anal sex with an adult woman. This encounter, even if true, was not sufficiently similar to the acts of which defendant was accused – anally penetrating his young son – to be admissible.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 16,2012
Fisher Housing Companies v. Hendricks Where a contractor who builds “stick-built” homes testified that he had no experience with modular homes, the trial court correctly determined that the contractor lacked the requisite level of skill to testify as an expert in the construction of a modular home.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 14,2012
Haithcox v. Flynt Amtex, Inc. Where a forensic psychiatrist testified that interviewing third parties was a common practice in her field, the Industrial Commission could consider her testimony under N.C. R. Evid. 703.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 9,2012
State v. Avent Although defendant was relying on an alibi defense, the amendment of the murder date in the indictment did not prejudice him. He was still able to present an alibi for the corrected date of the murder; moreover, witness statements and the autopsy gave the correct date, so defendant was not surprised by the amendment of the indictment.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 8,2012
State v. Mason When a police officer testified about the victim’s statements at the scene of the crime, the trial court instructed the jury that the testimony was being admitted for corroborative purposes only. Since the testimony was not admitted to prove the truth of the matters asserted, defendant’s constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him was not implicated.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 19,2012
State v. Harris The population geneticists -- who made the determinations about the probability of an unrelated, randomly chosen person being the one who contributed to the DNA mixture taken from the victim’s rape kit – were unavailable to testify. Nonetheless, SBI Agent Mackenzie Dehaan gave her opinion that the statistical information upon which she relied in developing her opinion regarding the significance of the DNA match was of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the field of DNA analysis, such being admissible under N.C. R. Evid. 703. The trial court did not err in admitting the statistical information.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
Applewood Properties, LLC v. New South Properties, LLC Because the county Natural Resources Department never found the defendant-contractor to be in violation of any law, rule, order or erosion and sedimentation and control plan, plaintiff did not have standing to bring a civil action under the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act to seek redress for its injuries.
North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Cully’s Motorcross Park, Inc. Even though defendant Volpe would probably never have been charged with obtaining property by false pretenses if the plaintiff-insurance company’s investigator had not told a police sergeant the results of his investigation, we reject this “but for” standard as the method for proving the initiation element of malicious prosecution.
Bridges v. Parrish We reject plaintiff’s claim that defendants are liable for failing to secure their gun, thereby allowing their 52-year-old son to gain access to the gun and shoot plaintiff with it.
