Legal Opinion

State v. Seelig

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 19, 2013No. COA12-442PublishedCited by 17 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GEER, Judge.

Defendant Paul Evan Seelig appeals from 23 convictions of obtaining property by false pretenses. On appeal, defendant primarily argues that his rights under the Confrontation Clauses of the federal and state constitutions were violated when the trial court permitted a witness to testify by way of a live, two-way, closed-circuit internet broadcast from Nebraska. We hold that under the controlling test set out in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 111 L. Ed. 2d 666, 110 S. Ct. 3157 (1990), the trial court did not err in allowing the live video testimony.

Facts

The State’s evidence…

2Cases cited39 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Pennsylvania v. RitchieSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Maryland v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  4. Mattox v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  5. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980

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

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. State of Iowa v. Zachariah J. RogersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 2014
  2. State Of Washington, V. Navin Avery MilkoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2022
  3. People of Guam v. Stefan Keanu CamachoSupreme Court of Guam · 2025
  4. El Pueblo v. Cruz RosarioSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 2020
  5. Commonwealth v. Hipolito Masa, Jr.Massachusetts Superior Court · 2020

12 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