Legal Opinion

State v. Wilhelm

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 2, 1982No. 8219SC273PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s first argument is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for change of venue or a special venire.

If, upon motion of the defendant, the court determines that there exists in the county in which the prosecution is pending so great a prejudice against the defendant that he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial, the court must either:(1) Transfer the proceeding to another county. . . , or(2) Order a special venire. . . .

G.S. 15A-957.

Defendant has the burden of proof on a motion for change of venue, and to prevail, he must show that there is a reasonable…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Payton v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. State v. OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. State v. PhillipsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  4. State v. RieraSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  5. State v. RiddickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. MyersCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  2. State v. FordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988
  3. State v. HuntCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
  4. State v. LewisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2015
  5. State v. ArtisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

2 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