State v. McLean
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
PARKER, Judge.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in allowing the robbery victim, Kevin Kinlaw, and a police officer to testify concerning the identification by Kinlaw of defendant from a photographic line-up. Defendant argues that the photographic array was impermissibly suggestive, resulting in a “substantial likelihood of misidentification.” State v. Hannah, 312 N.C. 286, 290, 322 S.E. 2d 148, 151 (1984). Impermissibly suggestive line-up procedures violate the due process rights of a defendant, and the usual remedy is to suppress the evidence of the array, and possibly to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. LeggettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. CorbettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. MacKCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
- State v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991