Legal Opinion

State v. Odom

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 8, 1983No. 551A82PublishedCited by 894 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MITCHELL, Justice.

The defendant contends that he should be granted a new trial due to the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the offense of simple assault. The defendant admits that he did not object to the instructions at trial and therefore waived his right to appeal on that ground. N.C.R. App. P. 10(b)(2). We agree with the defendant that the adoption of the “plain error” rule is appropriate in light of Rule 10(b)(2). While we adopt the “plain error” rule, when applying it to the defendant’s case we find no “plain error” that would mandate a new trial.

The charges against…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Henderson v. KibbeSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. United States v. Milton L. McCaskillCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
  3. State v. Marshall Norman HicksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. United States v. Clifford JacksonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
  5. State v. WeaverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982

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

3Cited by894 opinions

  1. State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2012
  2. State v. BondurantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. Dogwood Development & Management Co. LLC v. White Oak Transport Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
  4. State v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  5. State v. ArtisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1989

889 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