State v. Caddell

144 S.E.2d 621, 265 N.C. 563, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1048
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 3, 1965
Docket413
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 144 S.E.2d 621 (State v. Caddell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Caddell, 144 S.E.2d 621, 265 N.C. 563, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1048 (N.C. 1965).

Opinion

PER Cueiam.

The defendant’s court-appointed counsel, by brief and by oral argument here, urged that the court committed error in giving consideration to the FBI fingerprint record presented to the court on the question of punishment. The record disclosed a number of arrests without showing what disposition was made of the cases.

The punishment imposed was well within the limits prescribed for housebreaking. The fingerprint record was presented in open court in the presence of defendant and his counsel. They had opportunity to point out any errors in the record or to make any explanations with respect thereto. We are sure the careful and conscientious Judge did not give any improper consideration to the fingerprint record. In the judgment, we find

No error.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. LeBlanc
346 N.E.2d 874 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1976)
State v. Green
303 A.2d 312 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1973)
Egelak v. State
438 P.2d 712 (Alaska Supreme Court, 1968)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 S.E.2d 621, 265 N.C. 563, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1048, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-caddell-nc-1965.