State v. Boyd
| Decision Date | 13 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 358A12.,358A12. |
| Citation | 366 N.C. 548,742 S.E.2d 798 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Bryant Lamont BOYD. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A–30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ––– N.C.App. ––––, 730 S.E.2d 193 (2012), on remand from this Court, ––– N.C. ––––, 730 S.E.2d 193 (2012), vacating defendant's conviction for second-degree kidnapping that resulted in part in a judgment entered on 14 April 2010 by Judge Abraham Penn Jones in Superior Court, Orange County, and ordering a new trial on the charge of second-degree kidnapping. Heard in the Supreme Court on 11 March 2013.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, for the State-appellant.
Staples S. Hughes, Appellate Defender, by Andrew DeSimone, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellee.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, and this case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the remaining issues.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Malachi, 142PA17
...and State v. O'Rourke , 114 N.C. App. 435, 442, 442 S.E.2d 137, 140 (1994), the Court of Appeals acknowledged that, in State v. Boyd , 366 N.C. 548, 742 S.E.2d 798 (2013), this Court had reversed a Court of Appeals decision on the basis of a dissenting opinion stating that "errors [arising ......
-
Ciotto v. Hinkle
...... of an act which a person might lawfully do; and malfeasance is the doing of an act which a person ought not to do at all." (Citation omitted.) State ex rel. Neal v. State Civ. Serv. Commission , 147 Ohio St. 430, 434, 72 N.E.2d 69 (1947). 7 {¶ 49} Appellants argue that, because it was possible ..."Each person has a duty to engage in her daily activities using a certain amount of care." Boyd v. Moore , 184 Ohio App.3d 16, 2009-Ohio-5039, 919 N.E.2d 283, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.). I see no reason why a person should be absolved of exercising due ......
-
State v. Collington
...harmless error standard of review will automatically entitle a defendant to a new trial as a matter of law. See also State v. Boyd , 366 N.C. 548, 742 S.E.2d 798 (2013) (reversing a decision of the Court of Appeals on the basis of a dissent that concluded that the defendant had failed to es......
-
State v. Campbell
...also State v. Boyd , 222 N.C.App 160, 730 S.E.2d 193 (2012), rev'd for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion , 366 N.C. 548, 742 S.E.2d 798 (2013) (per curiam) (plain error review applies to an unpreserved error concerning a jury instruction for which there was no evidence).To establ......