Legal Opinion

Matter of Khork

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 6, 1984No. 8322DC1302PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Chief Judge.

Defendant first contends that it was error for the court to permit David B. Maddrey to testify that, in his opinion as an expert, the fire was not caused by electrical malfunction. We disagree. Generally, “[a]n expert witness is a person who is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion from facts in evidence.” State v. Brackett, 55 N.C. App. 410, 416, 285 S.E. 2d 852, 857, rev’d on other grounds, 306 N.C. 138, 291 S.E. 2d 660 (1982). Stated alternatively, “[t]he essential question determining the admissibility of opinion evidence is whether the witness, through…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. MyersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  3. State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  4. State v. LooneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  5. In Re BrownleeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Matter of BullaboughCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988
  2. Matter of GrovesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  3. In Re McDonaldCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  4. In re CousinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  5. In re CarterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1997

3 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