In re Dunston

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In re Dunston

182 S.E.2d 9, 12 N.C. App. 33, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1271

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 14, 1971

DocketNo. 719DC367

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 182 S.E.2d 9 (In re Dunston) 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 Dunston, 182 S.E.2d 9, 12 N.C. App. 33, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1271 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAHAM, Judge.

Respondent contends that the court’s findings were based upon hearsay evidence. It is true that some of the testimony offered was hearsay. However, respondent, who was represented by counsel at the hearing, made no objection or motion to strike. The testimony was therefore competent and could be considered. Abbitt v. Bartlett, 252 N.C. 40, 112 S.E. 2d 751; State v. Davis, 8 N.C. App. 589, 174 S.E. 2d 865.

Moreover, there was other competent evidence to support the court’s findings. The victim'of the assault testified that he was sitting on the commode in the boy’s bathroom of Louisburg High School when respondent and some other students came in and turned off the lights. The lights remained off for a minute or more and during that time the witness was kicked in the neck. When the lights came back on respondent was seen walking toward the door. The witness testified, “I am able to say which one kicked me. David Dunston. He was the only one near enough to do it.”

The findings and conclusions of the Juvenile Court are specific and are technically sound. We have reviewed the complete record and conclude that no prejudicial error appears therein.

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

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

GRAHAM, Judge.

Respondent contends that the court’s findings were based upon hearsay evidence. It is true that some of the testimony offered was hearsay. However, respondent, who was represented by counsel at the hearing, made no objection or motion to strike. The testimony was therefore competent and could be considered. Abbitt v. Bartlett, 252 N.C. 40, 112 S.E. 2d 751; State v. Davis, 8 N.C. App. 589, 174 S.E. 2d 865.

Moreover, there was other competent evidence to support the court’s findings. The victim'of the assault testified that he was sitting on the commode in the boy’s bathroom of Louisburg High School when respondent and some other students came in and turned off the lights. The lights remained off for a minute or more and during that time the witness was kicked in the neck. When the lights came back on respondent was seen walking toward the door. The witness testified, “I am able to say which one kicked me. David Dunston. He was the only one near enough to do it.”

The findings and conclusions of the Juvenile Court are specific and are technically sound. We have reviewed the complete record and conclude that no prejudicial error appears therein.

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 S.E.2d 9, 12 N.C. App. 33, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-dunston-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack