Legal Opinion

State v. Hernendez

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided July 3, 2007No. COA06-979PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYNN, Judge.

The proper foundation for the admission of opinion testimony as to a witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness is personal knowledge. 1 Here, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the opinion testimony of three defense witnesses. Because Defendant established that the witnesses hád personal knowledge of the complaining witness, the trial court prejudicially erred by excluding their opinions regarding the complaining witness’s character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.

On 18 January 2006, Defendant Alvaro De Jesus Valdez Hemendez 2 was…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2005
  2. United States v. WatsonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1982
  3. State v. RuofSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  4. State v. TuttCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  5. United States v. Howard Thomas LollarCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1979

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. BelkCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  2. United Leasing Corp. v. GuthrieCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  3. State v. ReavesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
  4. Wilkerson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2012
  5. State v. GillikinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011

3 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