State v. Lane
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BRANCH, Chief Justice.
The single question presented by this appeal is whether defendant was prejudicially deprived of his constitutional rights when the court permitted the district attorney to cross-examine him concerning his failure to disclose his alibi at the time he made a statement to the police officers or at any time before the trial.
Defendant relies heavily upon the case of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91, 96 S. Ct. 2240 (1976). In Doyle the two defendants were arrested and charged with selling marijuana. They were duly given their Miranda warnings. At trial the…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Doyle v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Harrington v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- State v. FairSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
- State v. BishopSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1997
- State v. JenningsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
- State v. FreelandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- State v. BucknerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1995
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.