State v. Cannady

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Cannady

205 S.E.2d 358, 22 N.C. App. 53, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2234

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1974

Docket747SC216

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 205 S.E.2d 358 (State v. Cannady) 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. Cannady, 205 S.E.2d 358, 22 N.C. App. 53, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2234 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendants contend that the court erred in consolidating the cases for trial. As defendants concede, the decision to consolidate rests in the discretion of the trial court, State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277, 163 S.E. 2d 492, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Fox, supra; State v. Yoes and Hale v. State, 271 N.C. 616, 157 S.E. 2d 386; State v. McCall and State v. Sanders and State v. Hill, 12 N.C. App. 85, 182 S.E. 2d 617, cert. den., 279 N.C. 513. No abuse of discretion has been shown.

Defendants argued that their respective confessions were improperly admitted into evidence. After an extensive voir dire examination, the court concluded that none of the defendants’ constitutional rights had been violated in connection with the statements. The court’s findings are based on competent evidence, including, among other things, written waivers signed by the defendants. The issue on voir dire is whether the incriminating statements were voluntarily made. State v. Haskins, 278 N.C. 52, 178 S.E. 2d 610; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1. That defendants may have made their statements with the hope that lower bond would be set or in the belief that another participant in the crime implicated them does not render their statements involuntary.

We have carefully considered defendants’ other assignments and find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges CAMPBELL and MORRIS concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendants contend that the court erred in consolidating the cases for trial. As defendants concede, the decision to consolidate rests in the discretion of the trial court, State v. Fox, 274 N.C. 277, 163 S.E. 2d 492, and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse of discretion. State v. Fox, supra; State v. Yoes and Hale v. State, 271 N.C. 616, 157 S.E. 2d 386; State v. McCall and State v. Sanders and State v. Hill, 12 N.C. App. 85, 182 S.E. 2d 617, cert. den., 279 N.C. 513. No abuse of discretion has been shown.

Defendants argued that their respective confessions were improperly admitted into evidence. After an extensive voir dire examination, the court concluded that none of the defendants’ constitutional rights had been violated in connection with the statements. The court’s findings are based on competent evidence, including, among other things, written waivers signed by the defendants. The issue on voir dire is whether the incriminating statements were voluntarily made. State v. Haskins, 278 N.C. 52, 178 S.E. 2d 610; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1. That defendants may have made their statements with the hope that lower bond would be set or in the belief that another participant in the crime implicated them does not render their statements involuntary.

We have carefully considered defendants’ other assignments and find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges CAMPBELL and MORRIS concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 S.E.2d 358, 22 N.C. App. 53, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 2234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cannady-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack