State v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Bennett

169 S.E.2d 31, 5 N.C. App. 662, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1422

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 13, 1969

DocketNo. 6926SC363

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 169 S.E.2d 31 (State v. Bennett) 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. Bennett, 169 S.E.2d 31, 5 N.C. App. 662, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1422 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Morris, J.

All of defendant’s purported exceptions and assignments of error are to the charge of the court. However, the portions thereof assigned as error are not set out in the assignments of error, and no exceptions appear with respect thereto except under the purported assignments of error. The portions of the charge to which defendant takes exception are not identified in the record by letters, parentheses, or in any other manner. These purported assignments of error are ineffective to challenge the correctness of the charge. Vail v. Smith, 1 N.C. App. 498, 162 S.E. 2d 78; State v. Dunn, 264 N.C. 391, 141 S.E. 2d 630. For the reasons stated herein, the motion of the State to dismiss the appeal is well taken and is allowed.

Dismissed.

Campbell and BrocK, JJ., concur.

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

Morris, J.

All of defendant’s purported exceptions and assignments of error are to the charge of the court. However, the portions thereof assigned as error are not set out in the assignments of error, and no exceptions appear with respect thereto except under the purported assignments of error. The portions of the charge to which defendant takes exception are not identified in the record by letters, parentheses, or in any other manner. These purported assignments of error are ineffective to challenge the correctness of the charge. Vail v. Smith, 1 N.C. App. 498, 162 S.E. 2d 78; State v. Dunn, 264 N.C. 391, 141 S.E. 2d 630. For the reasons stated herein, the motion of the State to dismiss the appeal is well taken and is allowed.

Dismissed.

Campbell and BrocK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 S.E.2d 31, 5 N.C. App. 662, 1969 N.C. App. LEXIS 1422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bennett-ncctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack