State v. McCraw
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CARLTON, Justice.
Defendant groups several assignments of error into six arguments. We find no prejudicial error and affirm.
I
Defendant first asserts that the trial court erred in failing to suppress the victim’s in-court identification. Defendant argues this in-court identification was tainted by impermissibly suggestive out-of-court identification procedures. He argues this taint was not removed by any showing that the in-court identification was based on a recollection independent of those improper out-of-court procedures. Defendant cites State v. Henderson, 285 N.C. 1, 203 S.E. 2d 10…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Mapp v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Foster v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by40 opinions
- State v. CoffeySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
- State v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- State v. FairSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
- State v. OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.