Legal Opinion

State v. Albert

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 5, 1981No. 104PublishedCited by 93 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HUSKINS, Justice.

Defendant’s sole assignment of error is directed to the action of the trial court in denying his motion for a mistrial.

The motion for a mistrial is based on the following exchange between defendant and the prosecuting attorney during recross examination of defendant:

Q. Mr. Albert, you answered all the questions of the officers, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And you told them you would be willing to take a polygraph examination?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. In fact, you did take a polygraph examination, didn’t you?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And you failed it, didn’t you?

Mr. COOK [defense counsel]: Objection.

A. I…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. SmallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  2. State v. MilanoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  3. State v. FoyeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  4. State v. PattersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  5. State v. BrunsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975

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

3Cited by93 opinions

  1. State v. HillSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  2. State v. BrownSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  3. State v. SyrianiSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
  4. State v. LloydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2001
  5. State v. AverySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

88 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