Legal Opinion

State v. Phifer

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 17, 1976No. 11PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MOORE, Justice.

Before defendants were arraigned, the State moved to consolidate the cases for trial. Defendants objected, and in the absence of the jury arguments were made on the motion. The motion was then allowed. Defendants assign this as error. The State’s motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Consolidation of cases for trial is generally proper when the offenses charged are of the same class and are so connected in time and place that evidence at trial upon one indictment would be competent and admissible on the other. State v. Taylor, 289 N.C. 223, 221 S.E.…

2Cases cited62 opinions

  1. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Carroll v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1925
  3. Furman v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Witherspoon v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. Chambers v. MaroneySupreme Court of the United States · 1970

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. State v. BullardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  2. State v. HardySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. State v. GoodeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
  4. State v. CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. EvangelistaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987

33 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