State v. Alexander

203 S.E.2d 324, 21 N.C. App. 91, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1722
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Alexander. Read the opinion of the Court — 18 N.C. App. 460
Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided March 6, 1974·No. No. 7326SC788·Published

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s exceptions to allowing the victim of his crime to identify him at trial are without merit. The evidence supports the court’s findings, after voir dire, to the effect that the identification of defendant by the victim was based solely on what the victim saw at the time of the robbery. The court’s findings which are supported by competent evidence are conclusive. State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 185 S.E. 2d 677.

Shortly after the robbery, defendant was seen running away from the scene of the crime. He was stopped and searched by police officers. The victim’s wallet and a loaded pistol were taken from defendant’s person. Defendant objected to the admission of these and other objects later taken from him. On appeal, defendant’s able counsel concedes that State v. Streeter, 283 N.C. [92]*92203, 195 S.E. 2d 502 negates his argument on the hdmission of these items. We agree and find no prejudicial error in defendant’s trial.

No error.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

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

State v. Alexander, 203 S.E.2d 324, 21 N.C. App. 91, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1722 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

203 S.E.2d 324 (State v. Alexander) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Taylor
185 S.E.2d 677 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Streeter
195 S.E.2d 502 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)