Legal Opinion

State v. Kidwell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 17, 2012No. COA10-1407Published

1Opinion of the Court

BRYANT, Judge.

Because defendant offers only the intangible hope that something helpful to his defense may have possibly turned up from the untimely receipt of discovery, the trial court did not err in denying his motions for a continuance-. Where there was substantial evidence that defendant killed the victim in order to commit a robbery, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the charge of first-degree murder. ,

On 10 February 2005, at 3:00 a.m., Robert Holmes, an employee of Maola Milk and Ice Cream Company, was making a delivery to the Kangaroo convenience…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Arizona v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. State v. TolleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. State v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
  4. State v. MurilloSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  5. State v. ManessSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2009

6 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