Legal Opinion

State v. Adkerson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 31, 1988No. 8717SC860PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COZORT, Judge.

Defendants Adkerson and Eanes were charged in indictments proper in form with possession of a controlled substance. Both filed motions to suppress certain evidence; the motions were denied after a hearing. Subsequently, under a plea arrangement with the State, each defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance. From the judgments sentencing each defendant to a minimum and maximum two-year suspended term, each defendant appeals. We affirm.

At the Suppression Hearing on this matter, the State’s evidence showed that on 11 October 1986, at approximately…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. United States v. CortezSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. New York v. BeltonSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  4. State v. ZunigaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  5. State v. LindleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. State v. PeeleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  2. Commonwealth v. YedinakSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. State v. PulliamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  4. State v. RichCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  5. State v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API