State v. Higgins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Higgins

314 S.E.2d 550, 310 N.C. 741, 1984 N.C. LEXIS 1687

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 30, 1984

DocketNo. 58A84

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 314 S.E.2d 550 (State v. Higgins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Higgins, 314 S.E.2d 550, 310 N.C. 741, 1984 N.C. LEXIS 1687 (N.C. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of felonious breaking or entering, felonious larceny, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. At trial the State introduced into evidence, over defendant’s objection, certain pawnshop tickets signed by the defendant. The Court of Appeals correctly determined that this evidence was not admissible for the purpose of establishing a motive for the crimes with which defendant was [742]*742charged and further, that the State improperly used this evidence to impeach collaterally defendant’s responses to the State’s questions on cross-examination. The Court of Appeals’ decision to grant a new trial is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of felonious breaking or entering, felonious larceny, and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. At trial the State introduced into evidence, over defendant’s objection, certain pawnshop tickets signed by the defendant. The Court of Appeals correctly determined that this evidence was not admissible for the purpose of establishing a motive for the crimes with which defendant was [742]*742charged and further, that the State improperly used this evidence to impeach collaterally defendant’s responses to the State’s questions on cross-examination. The Court of Appeals’ decision to grant a new trial is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

314 S.E.2d 550, 310 N.C. 741, 1984 N.C. LEXIS 1687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-higgins-nc-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack