Legal Opinion

State v. Harrill

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 29, 1976No. 94PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COPELAND, Justice.

The defendant first contends that the court erred in denying his motion for continuance and, thus, in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions deprived him of an opportunity fairly to prepare and present his defense. The reasons given for making the motion were that he did not receive a copy of the very complicated autopsy report of the victim until 6 May 1975 and that defendant was not discharged from Dorothea Dix Hospital in Raleigh, North Carolina, until 21 April 1975, after being confined there for the previous month.

Since the motion for continuance was based on…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. State v. GraySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. State v. MonkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  4. State v. JarretteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  5. Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. State v. JerrettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. State v. BrowerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  4. State v. SoyarsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
  5. State v. HornerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984

35 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