State v. McLamb
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WELLS, Judge.
First, defendant assigns error to the refusal of the trial court to allow defendant to exercise a peremptory challenge to a juror who, after the jury was impaneled, informed the court that she had made an incorrect response on voir dire as to whether she knew any of the state’s witnesses. The events on which this assignment is based were as follows. After the jury was impaneled and opening statements had been made by the state, but before the presentation of evidence, the trial judge indicated that a juror had admitted that she knew the state’s witness Mary Sue Hammonds, stating…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. RozierCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- State v. AlbartySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- State v. HelmsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
- State v. ColbertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- State v. BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. LorenzoCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- State v. PulliamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. PulliamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985