Legal Opinion

State v. Mills

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 30, 1986No. 8617SC590PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

In his first assignment of error, defendant contends that the court erred in denying his motion to sequester the State’s witnesses. We disagree. The rule in this State is that a motion to sequester witnesses is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and the court’s denial of the motion will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse. State v. Woods, 307 N.C. 213, 297 S.E. 2d 574 (1982). The defendant here argues that the State’s primary witnesses were related and that there was a greater risk that they would conform their testimony. However, since each witness testified…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. State v. MonkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. State v. WoodsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  4. State v. CornSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. GladdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. BerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
  2. State v. BellamyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  3. State v. PlattCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  4. MacClements v. LaFoneCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
  5. State v. IrbyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

4 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