 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Reed, NO. COA06-400,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in denying defendant's motion to suppress DNA-related evidence where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the patio connected to his apartment, he had thrown a cigarette butt toward a pile of trash on the patio, and a detective had kicked the cigarette butt off the patio and into a grassy common area before seizing it.
|
|||||
| State v. Roberson, NO. COA04-1645-2,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No error occurred in the imposition of an aggravated sentence on defendant's conviction for assault with a deadly weapon because while N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1340.16 did not apply based on when the crime occurred, a common law procedural mechanism existed for submitted aggravating factors to the jury in the form of a special verdict.
|
|||||
| State v. Royster, NO. COA06-473,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Sings, NO. COA06-554,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, N.C. R. Evid. 1101(b)(3), the Rules of Evidence did not apply at sentencing hearings. Trial court did not err in admitting hearsay evidence of an alleged bribe offered by defendant at his sentencing. Further, the use of hearsay evidence at sentencing hearings did not violate the Confrontation Clause.
|
|||||
| State v. Sparks, NO. COA06-170,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Parole revocation did not result in an additional punishment for double jeopardy purposes. N.C. Const. art. I, § 19 did not prohibit prosecution for failure to comply with sex offender registration, despite the fact that grounds for this prosecution were the same as used to revoke defendant's parole from a sentence imposed in a separate case.
|
|||||
| State v. Sutton, NO. COA06-612,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Swindell, NO. COA06-432,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Wilson, NO. COA06-470,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Vignola v. Apogee Constr. Co., NO. COA06-559,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA, March 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
