State v. Harrell
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
VAUGHN, Chief Judge.
Defendant alleges, first, that the police encounter underlying the charge of assault was unconstitutional, and, second, that the trial judge’s failure to sequester witnesses denied defendant due process and constituted prejudicial error. We deal separately with each of defendant’s claims.
I
Defendant contends that his constitutional rights were violated when he was stopped without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that, therefore, his motion to dismiss the assault charges should have been granted. We disagree.
The fourth amendment protects individuals against…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Adams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Brown v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Geders v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Moore v. EvansCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
- State v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Baine v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- State v. PittmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1992
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.