State v. Coleman

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Coleman

89 S.E.2d 791, 243 N.C. 109, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 714

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 9, 1955·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PeR Cueiam.

We have examined the defendant’s exceptions and assignments of error directed to the admission of certain evidence. In our opinion no sufficient prejudicial error has been shown to warrant a. new trial. Likewise, the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly denied.

However, since the defendant did not consent to the suspension of the sentence entered below, or the conditions imposed, the judgment entered is stricken out and the cause remanded for proper judgment. S. v. Cole, [110] 241 N.C. 576, 86 S.E. 2d 203; S. v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 86 S.E. 2d 774; S. v. Harvey, 242 N.C. 111, 86 S.E. 2d 793.

Error and remanded.

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

PeR Cueiam.

We have examined the defendant’s exceptions and assignments of error directed to the admission of certain evidence. In our opinion no sufficient prejudicial error has been shown to warrant a. new trial. Likewise, the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly denied.

However, since the defendant did not consent to the suspension of the sentence entered below, or the conditions imposed, the judgment entered is stricken out and the cause remanded for proper judgment. S. v. Cole, [110] 241 N.C. 576, 86 S.E. 2d 203; S. v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 86 S.E. 2d 774; S. v. Harvey, 242 N.C. 111, 86 S.E. 2d 793.

Error and remanded.

State v. Coleman, 89 S.E.2d 791, 243 N.C. 109, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 714 (N.C. 1955).

Pincite

89 S.E.2d 791 (State v. Coleman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related