Legal Opinion

State v. Lankford

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 18, 1976No. 755SC757PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Judge.

Defendants contend their in-court identification by Carolyn D. Catón was based on unnecessarily suggestive pretrial identification procedures which violated due process.

Our Court has generally held that an in-court identification of the accused by a witness who took part in such pretrial confrontation must be excluded unless it is first determined by the trial judge on voir dire that the in-court identification is of independent origin and thus not tainted by the illegal pretrial identification procedure. State v. Henderson, 285 N.C. 1, 203 S.E. 2d 10 (1974) ; State v. Bass, 280…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. State v. HendersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  3. State v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  4. State v. PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
  5. State v. TuggleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State v. PerryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
  3. State v. DanielsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  4. State v. CrabbCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  5. State v. PerryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API