State v. Dawson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Dawson

138 S.E.2d 234, 262 N.C. 607, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 701

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 14, 1964

Docket220

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 138 S.E.2d 234 (State v. Dawson) 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. Dawson, 138 S.E.2d 234, 262 N.C. 607, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 701 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Cueiam.

Defendant moved to suppress the testimony of Best and of Stutts as to the contents of the trunk of the Best car on the ground that Stutts had no search warrant and therefore his search of the trunk of the car and his seizure of the twelve gallons of nontaxpaid whiskey were in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant stresses his assignment of error based on his exceptions to the denial of said motion and to the admission of said testimony.

While the evidence shows the twelve gallons of nontaxpaid whiskey belonged to defendant, the evidence also shows the car was driven by and in the possession and under the control of Best. There was ample evidence that Best voluntarily gave Stutts the key to the trunk. Moreover, there was no search of defendant’s person and the car was not in defendant’s possession or under his control. The evidence does not support defendant’s contention that he was a lessee of the Best car. It shows simply that defendant paid Best $5.00 to use his mother’s car in performing an errand for defendant. The applicable legal principles relating to search and seizure are stated in S. v. McPeak, 243 N.C. 243, 90 S.E. 2d 501.

*609 While defendant’s other assignments have been considered, the alleged errors are not deemed of such prejudicial nature as to justify the award of a new trial.

No error.

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

PeR Cueiam.

Defendant moved to suppress the testimony of Best and of Stutts as to the contents of the trunk of the Best car on the ground that Stutts had no search warrant and therefore his search of the trunk of the car and his seizure of the twelve gallons of nontaxpaid whiskey were in violation of defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant stresses his assignment of error based on his exceptions to the denial of said motion and to the admission of said testimony.

While the evidence shows the twelve gallons of nontaxpaid whiskey belonged to defendant, the evidence also shows the car was driven by and in the possession and under the control of Best. There was ample evidence that Best voluntarily gave Stutts the key to the trunk. Moreover, there was no search of defendant’s person and the car was not in defendant’s possession or under his control. The evidence does not support defendant’s contention that he was a lessee of the Best car. It shows simply that defendant paid Best $5.00 to use his mother’s car in performing an errand for defendant. The applicable legal principles relating to search and seizure are stated in S. v. McPeak, 243 N.C. 243, 90 S.E. 2d 501.

*609 While defendant’s other assignments have been considered, the alleged errors are not deemed of such prejudicial nature as to justify the award of a new trial.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 S.E.2d 234, 262 N.C. 607, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dawson-nc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack