Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Smith's Criminal Case Compendium

Table of Contents

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., 04/27/2024
E.g., 04/27/2024
Reset
Results by Relevancy
Results by Contents Heading
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2

Evidence > Prior Acts--404(b) Evidence > Evidence Admissible > Defendant’s Witness Intimidation

State v. Thompson, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (May. 21, 2019)

The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting certain testimony that may have suggested that the defendant engaged in witness intimidation. Specifically a detective testified that during a photo lineup a victim appeared to not want to identify the suspect. The detective added that the victim “has had personal dealings with a brother of his in the past that had been killed because he had snitched and didn’t want to become part of that as well.” Even if this testimony suggested that the defendant intimidated the victim, it was properly admitted as relevant to explain why the victim did not identify the shooter and did not testify at trial.
State v. Thompson, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (May. 21, 2019)

The trial court did not commit plain error by admitting certain testimony that may have suggested that the defendant engaged in witness intimidation. Specifically a detective testified that during a photo lineup a victim appeared to not want to identify the suspect. The detective added that the victim “has had personal dealings with a brother of his in the past that had been killed because he had snitched and didn’t want to become part of that as well.” Even if this testimony suggested that the defendant intimidated the victim, it was properly admitted as relevant to explain why the victim did not identify the shooter and did not testify at trial.
Show Table of Contents