State v. Sizemore

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided August 27, 2009

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 2009-08-27

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently August 2009

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“(3) Whether the trial court violated the defendant's Confrontation Clause rights by admitting testimonial evidence where the defendant had not had a prior opportunity to cross examine the witness?”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Sizemore

Relies on Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2009-08-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

¶2The Court allows defendant’s petition for discretionary review for the limited purpose of remanding to the Court of Appeals, for reconsideration in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision if Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. -, 129 S. Ct. 2527, — L. Ed. - (2009), defendant’s issue Number 3:

(3) Whether the trial court violated the defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights by admitting testimonial evidence where the defendant had not had a prior opportunity to cross examine the witness.

¶3Defendant’s petition for discretionary review as to the remaining issues is denied.

¶4By order of the Court in Conference, this 27th day of August 2009.

Hudson, J.

¶5For the Court