Evidence Cases
Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided): –
Sort: Newest first A–Z
Clear all
Coverage since May 26, 2026

Evidence

North CarolinaAppellate ProcedureCriminalEvidence
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Uncategorized

State v. Moore — Cross-Examination with Prior Flee-from-Police Incident Upheld Under Rules 404(b) and 403 as Proper Impeachment

/

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a DWI/fleeing-to-elude conviction, holding that the trial court did not err under Rule 404(b) when it allowed the State to cross-examine the defendant about a prior urban police encounter that contradicted his trial testimony that he “would have pulled over” if approached in the city, and that the Rule 403 determination did not rise to an abuse of discretion despite the evidence’s limited probative value and high prejudice potential.

North CarolinaCriminalCriminal ProcedureEvidence
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Uncategorized

State v. Havens — Hidden Bathroom Cameras Convictions Upheld; 1978 Privacy-Intent Element Does Not Limit Current Secret Peeping Statute

/

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for secret peeping, second-degree sexual exploitation of a minor, and third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor arising from hidden charging-block cameras installed in bathrooms, holding that the 1978 “intent to invade privacy” gloss from In re Banks does not apply to the elements of the current N.C.G.S. § 14-202(f) felony secret-peeping statute.

TexasCriminalCriminal ProcedureEvidence
Texas Court of Appeals, Seventh District (Amarillo)
Uncategorized

Nichols v. State — Threats Relayed Through Crisis Negotiators Satisfy Aggravated Assault on Public Servant; Felony Deadly Conduct Is Not a Lesser-Included Offense When Indictment Charges Exhibiting, Not Discharging, a Weapon

/

The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed a fifteen-year conviction for aggravated assault on a public servant, holding that threats relayed through crisis negotiators to officers on scene satisfy the statute, and that felony deadly conduct is not a lesser-included offense of aggravated assault by threat where the indictment charges only exhibiting — not discharging — a weapon. The court modified the judgment to delete an attorney’s fees provision entered without the required finding of financial resources.

TexasCriminalEvidencePost-Conviction Relief
Texas Court of Appeals, Eighth District (El Paso)
Uncategorized

Johnson v. State — Post-Conviction DNA Retesting Denied Where Law-of-Parties Conviction Leaves Third-Party DNA Non-Exculpatory

/

The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed denial of a second post-conviction DNA testing motion in a capital murder case, holding that Chapter 64 does not permit comparison of a DNA specimen to a specific named individual, and that third-party DNA on the murder weapon is not exculpatory where the defendant was convicted under a law-of-parties theory and substantial evidence of guilt exists independent of the DNA.

South CarolinaCriminalEvidenceSelf-Defense
Court of Appeals of South Carolina
Uncategorized

State v. Barry W. Jones — Armed Return After “Kill” Text Defeats Stand Your Ground Immunity; Suicide Attempt Evidence Properly Admitted

/

The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed a murder conviction, holding that the defendant’s decision to return to the confrontation site while armed — minutes after texting “I’m gonna kill that BBoy” — defeated Stand Your Ground immunity under the Protection of Persons and Property Act; suicide attempt evidence was properly admitted under the Cartwright framework; and the self-defense jury charge adequately covered the law.

MassachusettsAdministrative LawCriminalEvidence
Massachusetts Appeals Court
Uncategorized

Doe v. SORB — Appeals Court Holds Hearsay Challenge Moot After Subsequent Convictions, Affirms Level 3 Reclassification

/

The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that a sex offender’s subsequent criminal convictions rendered moot his challenge to the reliability of hearsay evidence used in his SORB reclassification from level 2 to level 3, affirming the board’s decision in a case of first impression for published classification appeals.

Scroll to Top