Legal Opinion

State v. Mullican

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 15, 1989No. 8818SC884PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Counsel for defendant who was also counsel at trial enigmatically now argues on appeal that since there was no formal stipulation at the sentence hearing “the prosecutor’s mere assertion of the *29evidence in a statement to the court is totally insufficient to support the findings in aggravation.”

Defendant, citing cases such as State v. Powell, 254 N.C. 231, 118 S.E.2d 617 (1961), points out that while there is no particular form to be followed for a stipulation, the terms, nevertheless, must be definite and certain, and must be assented to by the parties.

A good case could be made…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. State v. MeltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  3. State v. PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  4. State v. DanielSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
  5. State v. BradleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. CanadySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  2. State v. CanadySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  3. State v. MullicanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1989
  4. Tharrington v. Wal-Mart StoresNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · 2010

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

Powered by the Exa API