Legal Opinion

State v. Lanier

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 20, 1981No. 8022SC687PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHICHARD, Judge.

Defendant contends the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of the State’s witness as to the actions of the bloodhound and in refusing to grant his motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence. We agree with both contentions.

In State v. McLeod, 196 N.C. 542, 545, 146 S.E. 409, 411 (1929), our Supreme Court, per Chief Justice Stacy, set forth the rule on admission of evidence regarding actions of bloodhounds as follows:

It is fully recognized in this jurisdiction that the action of bloodhounds may be received in evidence when it is properly shown: (1) that they…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. StephensSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
  2. State v. IrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  3. State v. RowlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. State v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
  5. State v. . McLeodSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1929

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Matter of DulaneyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  2. Matter of MeautCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  3. State v. DavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981

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

Powered by the Exa API