State v. Horner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MARTIN, Justice.
Defendant first argues that the trial court should have allowed his motion for change of venue. Defendant’s motion was based upon prejudicial pretrial publicity in Chatham County. In support of this motion, the defendant “handed up” two newspaper articles, one from the Chatham Record of Thursday, 23 September 1982, and one from the Chatham County Herald of 9 September 1982. Neither of the articles was offered into evidence nor is either before us as an exhibit. The trial judge filed a written order denying defendant’s motion. In so doing he found that the articles referred to…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Brinegar v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- United States v. VentrescaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- State v. OdomSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. VestalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. StepneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by61 opinions
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. BlakeneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- State v. OatesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2012
- State v. TunstallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
56 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.