State v. Hanif
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
BRYANT, Judge.
Where we are unable to discern any meaningful distinction between State v. Ward, 364 N.C. 133, 694 S.E.2d 738 (2010), and the instant case, we are compelled to grant defendant a new trial.
On 26 September 2011, defendant was indicted on charges of selling and delivering a counterfeit controlled substance, namely tramadol hydrochloride, which defendant represented to be Vicodin, a Schedule III controlled substance.1 Each of the charges stemmed from events, which occurred on 3 August 2011. Detectives with the Winston-Salem Police Department, assigned to the Special Investigations…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. LawrenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2012
- State v. WardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2010
- State v. HayesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1999
- State v. OglesbySupreme Court of North Carolina · 2007
- State v. LaneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2011
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. CarterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2017
- State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2019