Legal Opinion

State v. McLean

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 25, 1986No. 8620SC595PublishedCited by 2 opinions

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

  1. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
  3. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
  4. State v. LeggettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. State v. CorbettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. MacKCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  2. State v. PattersonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API