Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Hall

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided January 31, 1992No. 201PA90Published

1DissentJustice Whichard

I agree with the Court of Appeals that the evidence in question was a proper subject for expert testimony. See State v. Hall, 98 N.C. App. 1, 7-8, 390 S.E.2d 169, 172-73 (1990). Most jurisdictions apparently allow such evidence. See State v. Strickland, 96 N.C. App. 642, 646-47, 387 S.E.2d 62, 65 (1990). It clearly has some “tendency to make the existence of [a] fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action [i.e., the alleged rape] more probable . . . than it would be without the evidence,” and it thus meets the statutory test for relevancy. N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 401 (1988).…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. StaffordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. State v. StaffordCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. State v. StricklandCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990
  4. State v. HallCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API