Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

About

This compendium includes significant criminal cases by the U.S. Supreme Court & N.C. appellate courts, Nov. 2008 – Present. Selected 4th Circuit cases also are included.

Jessica Smith prepared case summaries Nov. 2008-June 4, 2019; later summaries are prepared by other School staff.

Instructions

Navigate using the table of contents to the left or by using the search box below. Use quotations for an exact phrase search. A search for multiple terms without quotations functions as an “or” search. Not sure where to start? The 5 minute video tutorial offers a guided tour of main features – Launch Tutorial (opens in new tab).

E.g., 10/21/2021
E.g., 10/21/2021
State v. Waring, 364 N.C. 443 (Nov. 5, 2010)

The trial court properly sustained the State’s objection to the defendant’s attempt to introduce opinion testimony regarding his IQ from a special education teacher who met the defendant when he was eleven years old. Because the witness had not been tendered as an expert, her speculation as to IQ ranges was inadmissible.

In this burning of a building case, the trial court did not commit plain error by allowing Investigator Gullie to offer expert opinion testimony. Investigator Gullie testified at trial without objection. Noting the procedural posture of the case, the court stated:

In challenging the trial court’s performance of its gatekeeping function for plain error, defendant implicitly asks this Court to hold the trial court’s failure to sua sponte render a ruling that Investigator Gullie was qualified to testify as an expert pursuant to Rule 702 amounted to error. And to accept defendant’s premise would impose upon this Court the task of determining from a cold record whether Investigator Gullie’s opinion testimony required that he be qualified as an expert in fire investigation, where neither the State nor defendant respectively sought to proffer Investigator Gullie as an expert or challenge his opinion before the trial court.

The court went on to hold that even assuming the trial court erred, the defendant could not establish plain error in light of other evidence presented in the case.

A laboratory technician who testified that substances found by law enforcement officers contained cocaine was properly qualified as an expert even though she did not possess an advanced degree.

Show Table of Contents