Legal Opinion

State v. Bruno

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 5, 1993No. 915SC832PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

EAGLES, Judge.

I

At the outset we note that the defendant raises twenty-two assignments of error. However, because the defendant has failed to bring forward assignments 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22 in his brief, they are deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. Pro. 28(b)(5).

II

By way of his third and fourth assignments defendant argues that the trial court committed reversible error by admitting DNA evidence. Specifically, defendant argues the evidence should have been excluded because: (1) the FBI’s procedures are unreliable because they are in a state of flux and the results are…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. BullardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  2. People v. CastroNew York Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State v. SchwartzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1989
  4. State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  5. State v. PenningtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1990

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Lance David Bean v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 2016
  2. State v. HowardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2016
  3. State v. StukesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  4. McLean v. Phil MechanicCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994
  5. State v. BrunoSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993

1 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