State v. Jones
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WEBB, Justice.
The defendant brings forth numerous assignments of error relating to each facet of his capital trial and sentencing proceeding. For the reasons set forth herein, we find the defendant’s trial and sentencing proceeding to have been free from prejudicial error.
By his first assignments of error, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by unduly restricting his voir dire of prospective jurors, thereby preventing him from making effective use of his peremptory challenges and violating his constitutional rights. The defendant says that the subjects he was prevented from…
2Cases cited120 opinions
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Lockett v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Wainwright v. WittSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Eddings v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
115 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by101 opinions
- State v. GolphinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. RoacheSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2004
- State v. WileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
- State v. CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2005
- Taylor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1996
96 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.