State v. Armistead
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
VAUGHN, Judge.
Defendant contends the court committed prejudicial error in allowing the introduction of testimony concerning a separate incident where defendant struck his child.
It is well established in North Carolina that when the defendant in a criminal trial does not testify, evidence of other offenses is inadmissible if its only relevance is to show the character of the accused or his disposition to commit the offense charge. 1 Stansbury, N.C. Evidence § 91 (Brandis rev. 1973); State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E. 2d 364 (1954); State v. Allen, 50 N.C. App. 173, 272 S.E. 2d 785 (1980).…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. McClainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- State v. TurnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
- State v. FredellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- State v. AllenCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- State v. MooreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. BowmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
- State v. SingletaryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. RenfroCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- State v. BaileyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
- State v. RenfroCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005