Legal Opinion

State v. Huu the Cao

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 17, 2006No. COA05-191PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYNN, Judge.

“Where testimonial evidence is at issue,... the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177, 203 (2004). In this case, Defendant contends the trial court committed plain error in admitting laboratory reports without the testing laboratory technician present for cross-examination and therefore violated his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. We hold that even assuming error by the trial court in the admission of the laboratory reports concluding…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. People v. RogersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. State v. ParkerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
  4. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  5. State v. MorganCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. CaulfieldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 2006
  2. State v. MarchSupreme Court of Missouri · 2007
  3. State v. ShipleySupreme Court of Iowa · 2008
  4. State v. CampbellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
  5. State v. ShellyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006

10 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