North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

  In support of his self-defense argument, defendant sought to introduce expert testimony that the victim’s aggressive and strange behavior was “consistent with methamphetamine intoxication.” However, the proffered witness had never examined the victim and agreed that if you “had ...

Although regulations prohibit “commercial vehicles” from driving on the George Washington Parkway unless authorized by permit, the mere fact the defendant was driving a commercial vehicle on the parkway did not provide a basis to stop his vehicle. The marijuana ...

After the defendant was sentenced to life without parole for crimes committed when he was 17, the Supreme Court held that, when sentencing a minor to life without parole, the court must consider the defendant’s “youth and attendant characteristics.” Because ...

Because there were good reasons why defense counsel for a man on trial for beating, shooting and robbing a prostitute decided to not test certain items for DNA, including the risk of undermining the trial strategy, the habeas court’s rejection ...

Where evidence disclosed since a conviction for rape and burglary 44 years ago suggests the police suppressed material evidence in violation of the defendant’s rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), the district court was directed to consider whether ...

  During closing arguments, defense counsel, without defendant’s consent, told the jury that the issue was whether the victim had consented to sexual contact, thereby either misspeaking or admitting to one element of the forcible sexual offense charge against defendant. ...

  Even though the state failed to notify defendant that it would seek to prove the aggravating factor that defendant was on probation at the time he committed perjury, defense counsel nevertheless admitted to the aggravating factor. Defense counsel’s failure ...

  The trial court erred by assessing court costs and fees on a per-judgment basis for two judgments when those judgments arose from the same criminal event and were adjudicated at the same trial. We dismiss defendant’s appeal in part, ...

  Evidence sufficient to find that defendant committed a new offense in violation of the conditions of his probation where trial court credited the testimony of witnesses who observed defendant attempting to drive his crashed vehicle while under the influence. ...

  Defendant was not entitled to dismissal because the state’s primary witness was “inherently incredible” because granting dismissal would improperly intrude upon the jury’s exclusive province as the arbiter of witness credibility and finder of fact. We find no reversible ...