Opinion · Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Llamas-Hernandez

State v. Llamas-Hernandez, 363 N.C. 8 (N.C. 2009)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Date
2009-02-06
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • reversing for reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of our Court, 189 N.C. App. 640, 652-54, 659 S.E.2d 79, 86-88 (2008)
  • reversing for reasons asserted in the dissenting opinion of the appellate court, 189 N.C. App. 640, 654, 659 S.E.2d 79, 88 (2008)
  • adopting dissent from Court of Appeals, 189 N.C. App. 640, 654-55, 659 S.E.2d 79, 88 (2008)

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Llamas-Hernandez. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
35 opinions
STATE v. LLAMAS-HERNANDEZ,363 N.C. 8(2009)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARIO LLAMAS-HERNANDEZ.
No. 220A08.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Filed 6 February 2009.
Evidence — lay opinion testimony — substance was cocaine
The decision of the Court of Appeals finding no error in defendant's trial and conviction of trafficking in cocaine by possession of 28 grams or more but less than 200 grams is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that the trial court erred by allowing two detectives to express lay opinions that a white powder substance found in an apartment leased by defendant was cocaine.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. §7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals,189 N.C. App. ___,659 S.E.2d 79(2008), finding no error in a judgment entered 14 September 2006 by Judge W. Robert Bell in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 November 2008.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by LaToya B. Powell, Assistant AttorneyGeneral, for the State.Kevin P. Tully, Public Defender, by Julie Ramseur Lewis, AssistantPublic Defender, for defendant-appellant.
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.Page 9