Legal Opinion

State v. Vines

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 21, 1992No. 9012SC1170PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

We note at the outset that defendant fails to discuss his fourth, six, seventh, eighth, tenth, twelfth and seventeenth assignments of error. These assignments are therefore deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P., Rule 28. In his remaining assignments, defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting evidence of an experiment without a sufficient showing of similar circumstances, failing to give curative instructions as requested by defendant and denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial.

Defendant further assigns as error the trial court’s failing to instruct on the burden of proof…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. State v. BondurantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  2. State v. WilkersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  3. State v. KirkleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  4. State v. CraigSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  5. State v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1988

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. MurilloSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
  2. State v. SpruillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1994
  3. State v. YorkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
  4. Couch v. Private Diagnostic ClinicCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  5. People v. SommersColorado Court of Appeals · 2008

4 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