Legal Opinion

State v. O'NEAL

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 6, 1984No. 832SC269PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge.

Although this appeal is interlocutory, in that no final judgment was entered, we have elected in our discretion, and in aid of our jurisdiction, to treat the “appeal” as a petition for writ of cer-tiorari and proceed to address the merits of the case. G.S. 7A-32(c); App. R. 21(a); Ziglar v. Du Pont Co., 53 N.C. App. 147, 280 S.E. 2d 510, disc. review denied, 304 N.C. 393, 285 S.E. 2d 838 (1981). 1

I

We hold first that the court exceeded its authority in declaring the mistrial over defendant’s objection. G.S. 15A-1061 empowers the trial court to declare a mistrial “Upon motion of…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Ashe v. SwensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. State v. . BealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
  4. State v. NorrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. BealSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. DialCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1996
  2. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  3. State v. JosephHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. State of Arkansas v. Mauricio A. TorresSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2021
  5. State v. CorneliusCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012

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