Legal Opinion

State v. Martin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 4, 1981No. 8121SC75PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

In his first argument, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury ex mero motu that:

(A) It must find that the identification testimony of prosecuting witnesses Holley and Watson was entirely the product of their recollection of the offender at the time of the offense and did not result from photos shown them by investigating officer Charles; and

(B) In considering the credibility of Holley, the jury should take into account a prior incorrect identification by Holley.

State’s evidence at trial indicated that James Holley and Phyllis Watson rented a…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. United States v. Melvin TelfaireCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
  3. State v. FulcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
  4. State v. SilhanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. AccorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. PooleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. State v. RankinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  3. State v. CarmonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  4. State v. GriffinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  5. State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982

2 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