State v. Maynard
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WHICHARD, Judge.
I
Defendant contends he is entitled to a new trial because the court failed to inform the jury of the “grant of immunity” to the witness Scott and to “instruct the jury as in the case of interested witnesses,” as required by G.S. 15A-1052(c). We find no prejudicial error warranting a new trial.
Article 61 of Chapter 15A (G.S. 15A-1051 et seq.), entitled “Granting of Immunity to Witnesses,” was modelled after the Federal Immunity of Witnesses Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 6001 to 6005. See G.S. 15A, Article 61 official commentary. The federal statute deals only with judicial orders of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. OdomSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. HardySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. BennettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. GreeneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. BaizeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- State v. McLaughlinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- State v. AldridgeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
- State v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- State v. HiltonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004