State v. Bullard
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
FRYE, Justice.
The defendant raises several assignments of error. Both parties agree, however, that the dispositive and crucial issue to this appeal is whether the trial court improperly allowed Dr. Louise Robbins, a physical anthropologist, to testify as an expert in the identification of a bloody bare footprint. This issue is one of first impression in this State. It is our conclusion, after carefully reviewing the entire record, the parties’ arguments, and the relevant law, that the trial court correctly allowed Dr. Robbins to testify and render her opinion. First, we will consider the…
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- State v. PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- State v. EarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. McClainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by254 opinions
- State v. FritschSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. ArtisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
- Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
- Connecticut v. PorterSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1997
- State v. HoldenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
249 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.