State v. Brothers

234 S.E.2d 652, 33 N.C. App. 233, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2136
CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina
DecidedMay 4, 1977
Docket769SC870
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 234 S.E.2d 652 (State v. Brothers) 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. Brothers, 234 S.E.2d 652, 33 N.C. App. 233, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2136 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

BROCK, Chief Judge.

Defendant groups six assignments of error in the record on appeal. Two of these assignments of error are restated in defendant’s brief as questions. However, defendant presents no argument and authority upon which he relies.

Rule 28(a) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in pertinent part:

“The function of all briefs required or permitted by these rules is to define clearly the questions presented to the reviewing court and to present the arguments and authorities upon which the parties rely in support of their respective positions thereon. Review is limited to questions so presented in the several briefs. Questions raised by assignments of error in appeals from trial tribunals but not then presented and discussed in a party’s brief, are deemed abandoned.”

Under App. R. 10(a) review is normally limited to questions which are based on exceptions and assignments of error properly set out in the record on appeal. The proviso to App. R. 10(a) allows review of the questions, without exceptions or assignments of error, which were reviewed under the old rules by the appeal itself or an exception to the judgment (such as the legal sufficiency of the indictment, subject matter jurisdiction, the plea, the jury verdict, and the judgment). However, this proviso does not negate the requirement of App. R. 28 that a question must be presented and argued in the brief in order to obtain appellate review of it. See State v. McMorris, 290 N.C. 286, 225 S.E. 2d 553 (1976).

*235 This appeal presents no question for review.

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Clark concur.

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

Related

Rodwell v. Chamblee
509 S.E.2d 785 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
State v. Barnes
430 S.E.2d 223 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1993)
In re the Appeal from the Environmental Management Commission
341 S.E.2d 588 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Matter of Environment. Management Com'n
341 S.E.2d 588 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1986)
Smith-Douglass v. Kornegay
318 S.E.2d 895 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
State v. Harper
272 S.E.2d 600 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
State v. Smith
272 S.E.2d 621 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
Love v. Pressley
239 S.E.2d 574 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
234 S.E.2d 652, 33 N.C. App. 233, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brothers-ncctapp-1977.