State v. Averette

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Averette

205 S.E.2d 755, 22 N.C. App. 181, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2272

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 19, 1974

DocketNo. 7410SC376

StatusPublished

This text of 205 S.E.2d 755 (State v. Averette) 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

State v. Averette, 205 S.E.2d 755, 22 N.C. App. 181, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2272 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court committed error in permitting the introduction of certain of the State’s exhibits. The exhibits which are the subject of this assignment of error are as follows: a cash box, bottles which contained narcotics, prescription scales, two pry bars, a chisel, and a paper listing the drugs found in the basement of the house in question. The defendant argues that the introduction of the exhibits served only the purpose of corroborating the State’s witness Carol Dane’s testimony, .and that the exhibits were inadmissible for this purpose, as the witness’ credibility had not been attacked. This argument is without merit. All of the items introduced into evidence by the State tended to show the break in and larceny with which the defendant was charged and were sufficiently tied to' the defendant by the testimony of other witnesses so as to be circumstantial evidence of his guilt. State v. Muse, 280 N.C. 31, 185 S.E. 2d 214 (1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 974 (1972) ; State v. Stroud, 254 N.C. 765, 119 S.E. 2d 907 (1961)..

We have carefully reviewed defendant’s two other assignments of error and find them also to be without merit. The defendant was afforded a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Britt and Carson concur.

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

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court committed error in permitting the introduction of certain of the State’s exhibits. The exhibits which are the subject of this assignment of error are as follows: a cash box, bottles which contained narcotics, prescription scales, two pry bars, a chisel, and a paper listing the drugs found in the basement of the house in question. The defendant argues that the introduction of the exhibits served only the purpose of corroborating the State’s witness Carol Dane’s testimony, .and that the exhibits were inadmissible for this purpose, as the witness’ credibility had not been attacked. This argument is without merit. All of the items introduced into evidence by the State tended to show the break in and larceny with which the defendant was charged and were sufficiently tied to' the defendant by the testimony of other witnesses so as to be circumstantial evidence of his guilt. State v. Muse, 280 N.C. 31, 185 S.E. 2d 214 (1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 974 (1972) ; State v. Stroud, 254 N.C. 765, 119 S.E. 2d 907 (1961)..

We have carefully reviewed defendant’s two other assignments of error and find them also to be without merit. The defendant was afforded a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Britt and Carson concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 S.E.2d 755, 22 N.C. App. 181, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-averette-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack