State v. Boyd

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Boyd

201 S.E.2d 512, 20 N.C. App. 475, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2472

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 9, 1974

DocketNo. 7325SC828

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 201 S.E.2d 512 (State v. Boyd) 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. Boyd, 201 S.E.2d 512, 20 N.C. App. 475, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2472 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the denial of her motions for dismissal for failure to grant her a speedy trial, for change of venue, and for a continuance. None of these assignments of error have any merit.

The defendant was arrested 18 June 1972, indicted at October Term, 1972, and tried 10 June 1973. The case was not reached at one term because of the heavy docket and deferred at another term because of the unavailability of an essential witness who was taking a three months course at the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D. C. The defendant was not in custody, and there is no showing that she has been prejudiced in any respect by the delay in trial. State v. Brown, 282 N.C. 117, 191 S.E. 2d 659; State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E. 2d 779.

Motions for change of venue on the ground of unfavorable publicity are addressed to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of such discretion is shown. State v. Mitchell, 283 N.C. 462, 465, 196 S.E. 2d 736, 738. Here there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury as chosen was aware of any adverse publicity or had been influenced in any manner by such publicity.

The ruling of the trial court upon a motion for continuance is not subject to review in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Robinson, 283 N.C. 71, 194 S.E. 2d 811. Not only must there be a showing of such abuse of discretion, but the defendant must have been prejudiced thereby. In this case the record fails to show that any juror had heard any testimony in any prior narcotics cases at the same term which would have unduly influenced his judgment in the defendant’s case, and no prejudice to defendant has been shown by denial of her motion for continuance.

[477]*477The plastic bag of marijuana after proper identification is clearly admissible in evidence, and the defendant’s objection to its admissibility was properly overruled. 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.), § 118, pp. 355-8.

In defendant’s trial and the judgment imposed, we find no error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur.

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

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the denial of her motions for dismissal for failure to grant her a speedy trial, for change of venue, and for a continuance. None of these assignments of error have any merit.

The defendant was arrested 18 June 1972, indicted at October Term, 1972, and tried 10 June 1973. The case was not reached at one term because of the heavy docket and deferred at another term because of the unavailability of an essential witness who was taking a three months course at the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington, D. C. The defendant was not in custody, and there is no showing that she has been prejudiced in any respect by the delay in trial. State v. Brown, 282 N.C. 117, 191 S.E. 2d 659; State v. Spencer, 281 N.C. 121, 187 S.E. 2d 779.

Motions for change of venue on the ground of unfavorable publicity are addressed to the discretion of the trial judge and will not be disturbed on appeal unless a manifest abuse of such discretion is shown. State v. Mitchell, 283 N.C. 462, 465, 196 S.E. 2d 736, 738. Here there is nothing in the record to indicate that the jury as chosen was aware of any adverse publicity or had been influenced in any manner by such publicity.

The ruling of the trial court upon a motion for continuance is not subject to review in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Robinson, 283 N.C. 71, 194 S.E. 2d 811. Not only must there be a showing of such abuse of discretion, but the defendant must have been prejudiced thereby. In this case the record fails to show that any juror had heard any testimony in any prior narcotics cases at the same term which would have unduly influenced his judgment in the defendant’s case, and no prejudice to defendant has been shown by denial of her motion for continuance.

[477]*477The plastic bag of marijuana after proper identification is clearly admissible in evidence, and the defendant’s objection to its admissibility was properly overruled. 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.), § 118, pp. 355-8.

In defendant’s trial and the judgment imposed, we find no error.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 S.E.2d 512, 20 N.C. App. 475, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-boyd-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack