State v. Smith
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HUSKINS, Justice.
Defendant first contends the trial court committed prejudicial error in allowing the State to challenge peremptorily ten prospective jurors in violation of G.S. 9-21 (b) which provides that “[i]n all capital cases the State may challenge peremptorily without cause nine jurors for each defendant and no more.” The record reveals that the court clerk was keeping the record of peremptories exercised by both the State and the defendant and, due to an erroneous count, informed the prosecution that the State had used five peremptory challenges when in fact it had used six. The State…
2Cases cited53 opinions
- Witherspoon v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Fahy v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- State v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. MonkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. FaustSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- State v. YoungSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. OliverSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. AlstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. BardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
- State v. HuffstetlerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.