Legal Opinion

State v. Foster

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 16, 1983No. 8210SC1160PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge.

The sole question presented for review is whether defendant is entitled to a new trial because of the trial court’s refusal to give his requested instruction limiting the purposes for which the jury could consider the evidence that a “mug shot” was taken of the defendant four months before the charged offense occurred. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the trial court’s refusal to give the limiting instruction requested by defendant was prejudicial error, entitling defendant to a new trial.

The charges against defendant arose out of the robbery of the Community…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. FulcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  2. United States v. Albert Junior HolleyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1974
  3. State v. . RaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
  4. State v. HuntSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  5. State v. NorkettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. HuntCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  2. State v. HuntCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  3. State v. OglesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2018
  4. State v. StewardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  5. State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2026

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API