State v. Copeland

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Copeland

199 S.E.2d 448, 284 N.C. 108, 1973 N.C. LEXIS 782

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 10, 1973

DocketNo. 10

StatusPublished

This text of 199 S.E.2d 448 (State v. Copeland) 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. Copeland, 199 S.E.2d 448, 284 N.C. 108, 1973 N.C. LEXIS 782 (N.C. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

HUSKINS, Justice.

The case on appeal contains no assignments of error. In the brief, defense counsel states that he is unable to find prejudicial error but has perfected the appeal to the end that this Court may examine the entire record.

The appeal itself is considered an exception to the judgment and presents for review any error appearing on the face of the record proper. State v. Cox, 281 N.C. 131, 187 S.E. 2d 785 (1972); State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330 (1967). Unless error appears on the face of the record proper, the judgment will be sustained. State v. Bumgarner, 283 N.C. 388, 196 S.E. 2d 210 (1973); State v. Williams, 268 N.C. 295, 150 S.E. 2d 447 (1966).

Ordinarily, the record proper in criminal cases consists of (1) the organization of the court, (2) the charge (information, warrant or indictment), (3) the arraignment and plea, (4) the verdict, and (5) the judgment. State v. Tinsley, 279 N.C. 482, 183 S.E. 2d 669 (1971); State v. McClain, 282 N.C. 357, 198 S.E. 2d 108 (1972).

A careful examination of the record proper reveals no error. Evidence of defendant’s guilt is overwhelming. In the trial, verdict and judgment we find

No. error.

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