State v. Mangum

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion due in part to the “significant points of commonality between the Rule 404(b) evidence and the offense charged”
• finding no abuse of discretion based in part on “the significant points of commonality between the Rule 404(b) evidence and the offense charged”
• finding no abuse of discretion based in part on “the trial court’s conscientious handling of the process”
• mentioning the trial court’s review of the evidence outside the jury’s presence and use of limiting instructions
• “Remoteness in time generally affects only the weight to be given Rule 404(b) evidence, not its admissibility.” (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Jones
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2023-03-21
• State v. Ervin
  Court of Appeals of North Carolina· 2025-04-02