Legal Opinion
State v. Barfield
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided November 6, 1979No. 12PublishedCited by 284 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRITT, Justice.
We find no prejudicial error in either phase of defendant’s trial and conclude that the verdicts and judgments should not be disturbed. We will discuss the errors assigned under each phase.
Phase I — Guilt Determination
By her first assignment of error defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for the appointment of additional counsel. There is no merit in this assignment.
When it had been determined that defendant was indigent, Attorney Robert D. Jacobson of the Robeson County Bar was appointed to serve as her counsel. At an early stage of the…
2Cases cited98 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Gregg v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Witherspoon v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
93 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by284 opinions
- State v. JacksonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. BondurantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- State v. StokesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- Tichnell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
279 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.