State v. Lankford
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
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
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- State v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. TuggleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. PerryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. JacksonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. DanielsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. CrabbCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. PerryCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981