Legal Opinion

State v. Holman

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 20, 1989No. 8923SC73PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

Defendant first argues the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial because “a statement made by a prospective juror during jury selection was highly prejudicial to [him] and resulted in substantial and irreparable harm to [his] case.” In this case, a prospective juror stated that if someone did this (i.e., commit the offense of indecent liberties) to one of her children, “they would be trying [her] for murder.” The prospective juror was immediately excused and the trial court instructed the remaining prospective jurors to disregard the statement. At the time of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. State v. KistleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  3. State v. HicksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  4. State v. LorenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. TurmanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. United States v. KellyDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 2013
  2. State v. LoveCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API