Legal Opinion

State v. Mendez

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 3, 1979No. 793SC204PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MITCHELL, Judge.

The defendant assigns as error the action of the trial court in allowing the District Attorney to ask one of the defendant’s witnesses several questions concerning that witness’ prior criminal activity. During cross-examination, the District Attorney asked the defendant’s witness George Mitchell Duke, Jr. questions concerning his past involvement in various drug related activities. Although the defendant contends that the District Attorney’s cross-examination constituted prejudicial error, we do not agree.

It is permissible to impeach or discredit a witness on cross-examination…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Herrera v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1978
  3. State v. WaddellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  4. State v. CarverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  5. People v. BoldenAppellate Court of Illinois · 1978

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. EarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. State v. DowCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. State v. Nunez-MartinezCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
  4. State v. UprightCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  5. State v. BoydCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

5 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