Court Opinion

ID: 9540946
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:21:04.566554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:49.191919
License: Public Domain

Justice Martin
concurring.
Believing as I do that the “plain error” doctrine has no proper place in the law of evidence, I concur in the result reached in part I of the majority opinion. State v. Black, 308 N.C. 736, 303 S.E. 2d 804 (1983) (Martin, J., concurring). In this regard, it is notable that the Evidence Code, N.C.G.S. 8C, became effective 1 July 1984. It does not contain a reference to the “plain error” doctrine created by the federal courts and adopted by a majority of this Court in Black, but, rather, provides that “an appellate court may review errors affecting substantial rights if it determines, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to do so.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 103(d) (Cum. Supp. 1983). This is no more than what *417this Court has always done, and will continue to do, to prevent manifest miscarriage of justice. Ange v. Ange, 235 N.C. 506, 71 S.E. 2d 19 (1952); State v. Cochran, 230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E. 2d 663 (1949); Mining Co. v. Mills Co., 181 N.C. 361, 107 S.E. 216 (1921).
I concur in the remainder of the opinion.