State v. McLamb
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
The defendants first contend that the trial court erred in allowing the State to cross-examine the defendants’ character witness as to knowledge of the defendants’ prior similar acts and in denying the defendants’ motion for mistrial based on the cross-examination. It is well-established in North Carolina that a character witness may not be asked whether he has heard of particular acts of misconduct by the defendant. See State v. Hunt, 287 N.C. 360, 215 S.E. 2d 40 (1975). The concern of this rule is that such questioning, which informs the jury that a defendant has a prior…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Oliver v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State v. AgnewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. HayesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- State v. HuntSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. MettrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. SweetSupreme Court of Missouri · 1990
- State v. BoydCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
- State v. BoydCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005