Legal Opinion

State v. Russell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 2008No. COA07-571PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WYNN, Judge.

Under our case law, “[a] defendant’s voluntary and unexplained absence from court subsequent to the commencement of trial constitutes ... a waiver [of his right to confrontation].” 1 Here, Defendant Angelo Maurice Russell failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his absence from his trial. Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that he waived his right to confrontation.

On 20 August 2005, Annis Hannah was at the Smithfield Elementary School for her son’s soccer tryouts between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. When she returned to her minivan, parked in an open…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. CampbellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2005
  2. State v. FerebeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  3. State v. RichardsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1991
  4. State v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. EllisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  2. State v. NanceCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API