State v. Daye

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Daye

185 S.E.2d 595, 13 N.C. App. 435, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2260

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 12, 1972

DocketNo. 7114SC690

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 S.E.2d 595 (State v. Daye) 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. Daye, 185 S.E.2d 595, 13 N.C. App. 435, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2260 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for mistrial due to the prejudicial responses of a State’s witness and improper ques[436]*436tioning by the solicitor. “As a general rule, a motion for a mistrial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.” State v. Williams, 7 N.C. App. 51, 171 S.E. 2d 39. The record before us discloses no abuse of discretion. It suffices to say that, in almost every instance, the able trial judge ruled with the defendant when defendant elected to enter timely objections to the solicitor’s questions or moved to strike the responses now alleged to constitute prejudicial error.

Defendant finally contends that the court erred in failing to require the police officer who purchased the heroin from defendant to disclose the identity of a confidential informer. At trial defendant did not contend, and there is nothing in this record to show, that the identity of the informer would be relevant or helpful to the defense. This assignment of error is overruled. State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 141, 166 S.E. 2d 53. In the trial from which defendant appealed we find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for mistrial due to the prejudicial responses of a State’s witness and improper ques[436]*436tioning by the solicitor. “As a general rule, a motion for a mistrial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.” State v. Williams, 7 N.C. App. 51, 171 S.E. 2d 39. The record before us discloses no abuse of discretion. It suffices to say that, in almost every instance, the able trial judge ruled with the defendant when defendant elected to enter timely objections to the solicitor’s questions or moved to strike the responses now alleged to constitute prejudicial error.

Defendant finally contends that the court erred in failing to require the police officer who purchased the heroin from defendant to disclose the identity of a confidential informer. At trial defendant did not contend, and there is nothing in this record to show, that the identity of the informer would be relevant or helpful to the defense. This assignment of error is overruled. State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 141, 166 S.E. 2d 53. In the trial from which defendant appealed we find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E.2d 595, 13 N.C. App. 435, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-daye-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack