Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 20, 1983No. 8226SC1161PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PHILLIPS, Judge.

The defendant rests his hopes for a new trial upon the solitary contention that the trial judge’s refusal to specially instruct the jury on the identity issue, as requested, was prejudicial error. His position is well taken.

In State v. Kinard, it was said:

Whether the identification issue is such a substantial feature of the case that the trial court is required to give instructions specifically dealing with the relevant factors involved in either a confrontation identification or photographic identification depends on the evidence in each case. If the evidence strongly…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. United States v. Albert Junior HolleyCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1974
  2. State v. LangSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1980
  3. United States v. Robert J. ButlerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
  4. State v. LangCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  5. State v. KinardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  2. State v. CarsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  3. State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  4. State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API