In Re Colson

188 S.E.2d 682, 14 N.C. App. 643, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2205
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMay 24, 1972
Docket7218DC369
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 S.E.2d 682 (In Re Colson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Colson, 188 S.E.2d 682, 14 N.C. App. 643, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2205 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Opinion

GRAHAM, Judge.

Respondent made a motion in this Court in arrest of judgment on the grounds the petition was not signed nor verified as required by G.S. 7A-281.

The record which respondent’s counsel filed in this Court fails to show that the petition on which respondent was tried was signed or verified. However, upon motion of the State, a copy of the original petition, duly certified by the clerk as a “true copy of the original on file in this office,” was ordered reproduced as an addendum to the record. This copy plainly shows that the original petition was signed and verified as required by law.

We are afforded no explanation as to why the copy of the petition included in the original record did not show that it was executed or verified. The Assistant Public Defender who filed respondent’s brief in this Court also appeared for respondent at the trial. The record shows that he tendered the original record on appeal to the solicitor. The solicitor accepted the record without filing exceptions or a countercase.

Inaccurate records continue to be a source of concern in this Court. Needless to say, we are particularly perplexed when appellant’s counsel seeks relief on grounds appearing solely *645 because the record which he prepared is inaccurate or incomplete. State v. Lindsey, 14 N.C. App. 266, 188 S.E. 2d 7.

There are other assignments of error which we deem unnecessary to discuss. However, we have reviewed all assignments of error and the complete record. We find that respondent was afforded a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Morris and Vaughn concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Matter of Green
313 S.E.2d 193 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 S.E.2d 682, 14 N.C. App. 643, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-colson-ncctapp-1972.