State v. Bennett

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Bennett

207 S.E.2d 314, 22 N.C. App. 671, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2412

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 7, 1974

DocketNo. 745SC511

StatusPublished

This text of 207 S.E.2d 314 (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, 207 S.E.2d 314, 22 N.C. App. 671, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2412 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

We are unable to sustain defendant’s assignment of error to the denial of the motion to sequester witnesses and to the denial of motion for mistrial grounded upon apparent noncompliance with the order to sequester that was ultimately-entered. This jurisdiction has long followed the rule that segregation, separation, or exclusion of witnesses is not a matter of right, but of discretion on the part of the trial judge. The exercise of such discretion is reviewable only in cases where the discretion has been abused. State v. Spencer, 239 N.C. 604, 80 S.E. 2d 670 (1954). In State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E. 2d 897 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the trial court does not abuse its discretion in denial of defendant’s motion to sequester witnesses where the record discloses no reason for sequestration. Counsel for defendant stated at trial that he wished to have witnesses Sneed and Holmes sequestered so that they could not confer about the case. We fail to discern, however, that there has been an abuse of discretion or that an adequate reason for sequestration was presented to the court. Nor do we discern prejudice in the fact that several witnesses remained in the courtroom after the court ordered all witnesses removed. It does not appear that counsel made any objection to their presence until the conclusion of the State’s rebuttal evidence.

Likewise, we are unable to sustain the assignment of error to the exclusion of a statement allegedly made by defendant to Lieutenant Hayes. The record does not reflect what the answer of Lieutenant Hayes would have been relative to this statement. Thus, we are unable to determine whether defendant has been prejudiced by its exclusion, and this assignment of error is overruled. State v. Mitchell, 20 N.C. App. 437, 201 S.E. 2d 720 (1974).

No error.

Judges Britt and Baley concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

We are unable to sustain defendant’s assignment of error to the denial of the motion to sequester witnesses and to the denial of motion for mistrial grounded upon apparent noncompliance with the order to sequester that was ultimately-entered. This jurisdiction has long followed the rule that segregation, separation, or exclusion of witnesses is not a matter of right, but of discretion on the part of the trial judge. The exercise of such discretion is reviewable only in cases where the discretion has been abused. State v. Spencer, 239 N.C. 604, 80 S.E. 2d 670 (1954). In State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E. 2d 897 (1970), the Supreme Court held that the trial court does not abuse its discretion in denial of defendant’s motion to sequester witnesses where the record discloses no reason for sequestration. Counsel for defendant stated at trial that he wished to have witnesses Sneed and Holmes sequestered so that they could not confer about the case. We fail to discern, however, that there has been an abuse of discretion or that an adequate reason for sequestration was presented to the court. Nor do we discern prejudice in the fact that several witnesses remained in the courtroom after the court ordered all witnesses removed. It does not appear that counsel made any objection to their presence until the conclusion of the State’s rebuttal evidence.

Likewise, we are unable to sustain the assignment of error to the exclusion of a statement allegedly made by defendant to Lieutenant Hayes. The record does not reflect what the answer of Lieutenant Hayes would have been relative to this statement. Thus, we are unable to determine whether defendant has been prejudiced by its exclusion, and this assignment of error is overruled. State v. Mitchell, 20 N.C. App. 437, 201 S.E. 2d 720 (1974).

No error.

Judges Britt and Baley concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 S.E.2d 314, 22 N.C. App. 671, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bennett-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack