State v. Taylor

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Taylor

483 S.E.2d 190, 345 N.C. 352

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Taylor. Read the opinion of the Court — 337 N.C. 597 →

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 7, 1997·No. No. 31A93-2·Published

Opinion

Upon petition by defendant for writ of certiorari and writ of supersedeas, the following order is entered: Although this Court determined in State v. Conner, 335 N.C. at 644-45, that certain questions submitted by defense counsel to some prospective jurors in this case were proper questions under Morgan, we conclude that any [353]*353error in sustaining objections to those questions was not prejudicial under the peculiar facts of this case. Defendant’s other issues are procedurally barred. Accordingly, defendant’s petition is denied 7 February 1997.

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

Upon petition by defendant for writ of certiorari and writ of supersedeas, the following order is entered: Although this Court determined in State v. Conner, 335 N.C. at 644-45, that certain questions submitted by defense counsel to some prospective jurors in this case were proper questions under Morgan, we conclude that any [353]*353error in sustaining objections to those questions was not prejudicial under the peculiar facts of this case. Defendant’s other issues are procedurally barred. Accordingly, defendant’s petition is denied 7 February 1997.

State v. Taylor, 483 S.E.2d 190, 345 N.C. 352 (N.C. 1997).

Pincite

483 S.E.2d 190 (State v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.