Legal Opinion

State v. Tidwell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 7, 1993No. 9319SC221PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Judge.

Defendant contends that she is entitled to a new trial due to (1) repeated instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct, (2) denial of her right to effective assistance of counsel, (3) the trial court’s refusal to give a requested jury instruction, and (4) the court’s failure to submit the lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter as a possible verdict. Defendant’s latter two contentions have merit and we conclude that she is entitled to a new trial. We do not address her other contentions because they concern matters which may not arise at a new trial.

Defendant requested the…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. State v. WilkersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. State v. FoustSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
  3. State v. LambSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  4. State v. BaileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  5. State v. WallaceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
  2. Barnard v. RowlandCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  3. State v. BetheaCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
  4. State v. ReynoldsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  5. State v. ClappCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014

4 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