Legal Opinion

State v. Fennell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 7, 1982No. 384A82PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MEYER, Justice.

It is defendant’s contention that he is entitled to a new trial for the trial judge’s failure to specify in his charge to the jury which of the several acts of fellatio the jury was to consider in determining his guilt. Defendant did not object to the instructions as given. Rule 10(b)(2) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, in effect at the time of defendant’s trial, provides:

Jury Instructions; Findings and Conclusions of Judge. No party may assign as error any portion of the jury charge or omission therefrom unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. PowellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. State v. EarnhardtSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  3. Pruitt v. WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. Pruitt v. . WoodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  5. State v. WoodsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. State v. CallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  2. State v. HartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2007
  3. State v. PorterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990
  4. State v. BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  5. Bustle v. RiceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

35 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