About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

103 N.C. L. Rev. F. 1 (2024-2025)

handle is hein.journals/addendum103 and id is 1 raw text is: 103 N.C. L. REV. F. 1 (2024) Case Brief: State v. Abbitt' INTRODUCTION Determining whether evidence is relevant in criminal proceedings can be a delicate balance. Too stringent a standard could block exculpatory evidence and lead to wrongful convictions. Too lax of a standard could overwhelm juries and derail trials. Under North Carolina law, the standard of relevance for evidence implicating third parties is that the evidence must (1) point directly to the guilt of some specific person, and (2) be inconsistent with the defendant's guilt.1 In State v. Abbitt,2 the Supreme Court of North Carolina considered how to apply that standard where evidence suggested that the defendants may have had an unidentified accomplice-introducing the possibility that both the defendants and the implicated third party were involved in the commission of the crime.3 The Supreme Court of North Carolina deemed the evidence implicating a third party in Abbitt inadmissible because even though it tended to show a third party's involvement, it was not inconsistent with the defendant's guilt.4 In doing so, the court set a high bar for showing that evidence is inconsistent with the defendant's guilt that may require future defendants to offer additional evidence that the third party was not their accomplice. FACTS OF THE CASE Defendants Sindy Lina Abbitt and Daniel Albarran were charged with attempted robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, and the murder of Lacynda Feimster.' Each charge arose from a single series of events occurring on the night of May 24,2016.6 Evidence at trial tended to show that Feimster left work and returned home, where her son and mother were waiting.' When Feimster arrived, she was accompanied by a Black woman who was armed with a gun and a Hispanic man who was wearing latex gloves.8 Feimster and the woman went into Feimster's bedroom while the man sat in the living room with Feimster's mother.' At trial, Feimster's mother testified that the man made several phone * © 2024 Kathryn Turk. 1. State v. Abbitt, 385 N.C. 28, 40-41, 891 S.E.2d 249, 258 (2023) (quoting State v. McNeill, 326 N.C. 712, 721, 392 S.E.2d 78, 83 (1990)). 2. 385 N.C. 28, 891 S.E.2d 249 (2023). 3. See id. at 42, 891 S.E.2d at 259. 4. Id. at 43, 891 S.E.2d at 259. 5. Id. at 29, 891 S.E.2d at 251. 6. Id. 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. Id.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most