Legal Opinion

State v. Barbour

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 8, 1978No. 36PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COPELAND, Justice.

After careful examination of defendant’s numerous assignments of error, we find that sufficient prejudicial error occurred below to warrant a new trial. Our initial discussion is directed to two assignments which are without merit but likely to be raised on retrial.

Defendant argues that the trial court erred in limiting him to six peremptory challenges during jury selection. Under G.S. 9-21(a), each defendant is allowed fourteen peremptory challenges in capital cases but only six in all other cases. Because North Carolina’s mandatory death penalty law was declared…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Woodson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Hankerson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  3. State v. HankersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  4. Martin v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1974
  5. State v. ReamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. State v. CummingsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
  2. State v. McDowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. State v. PotterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  4. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  5. State v. JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986

33 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