State v. Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HIGGINS, Justice.
On this appeal the defendant argues the trial court committed two prejudicial errors: (1) The court should have sustained his motion to quash the indictment and should have dismissed the action because of defects in the North Carolina Capital Felony Statute under which the indictment was drawn; and, conditionally, (2) If his motion to quash be not allowed, then he is entitled to a new trial because of the court’s error in permitting the State to introduce his confession in evidence. These two questions alone were discussed and hence all other objections are abandoned.
As…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Jackson v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Spencer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- State v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. BarnesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by54 opinions
- State v. CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2008
- State v. HughesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. PhillipsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
- State v. SteenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
49 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.