Legal Opinion

State v. Willard

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 11, 1977No. 66PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

LAKE, Justice.

The defendant assigns as error the denial of his pretrial motion to sequester the witnesses for the State. He correctly concedes that this was a matter in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Felton, 283 N.C. 368, 196 S.E. 2d 239 (1973); State v. Cook, 280 N.C. 642, 187 S.E. 2d 104 (1972); State v. Yoes and Hale v. State, 271 N.C. 616, 641, 157 S.E. 2d 386 (1967); State v. Hamilton, 264 N.C. 277, 286, 141 S.E. 2d 506 (1965), cert. den., 384 U.S. 1020 (1966); Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence (Brandis Rev., 1973), § 20. Nothing in this record suggests abuse of discretion…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. State v. GoinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. State v. McKinneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. State v. HamiltonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. State v. BrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  5. State v. YoesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. State v. AbernathySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. State v. LowerySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. State v. SellarsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  4. State v. PrattSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  5. Fisher v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

14 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