State v. Evans

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Evans

162 S.E.2d 97, 1 N.C. App. 603, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 1147

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 10, 1968

Docket68SC202

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 162 S.E.2d 97 (State v. Evans) 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. Evans, 162 S.E.2d 97, 1 N.C. App. 603, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 1147 (N.C. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, J.

The defendant in this case submitted the complete transcript of the evidence under Rule 19(d)(2), but contrary to the provisions of that rule, the defendant did not attach an appendix to his brief setting forth in succinct language, with respect to those witnesses whose testimony he deemed to be pertinent to the questions raised on appeal, what he says the testimony of such witnesses would tend to establish. The defendant thereby imposed upon this Court the necessity of a voyage of discovery through the record. Ordinarily, this Court would dismiss such an appeal ex mero motu for failure to comply with the rules. Despite the failure to comply with the rules of this Court, we have reviewed the testimony and are of the opinion that the failure of the State’s evidence to identify the merchandise sold to Demps as being the same merchandise taken from Gales Tavern places this case within the doctrine of State v. Parker, 268 N.C. 258, 150 S.E. 2d 428, and State v. Foster, 268 N.C. 480, 151 S.E. 2d 62. The motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed.

Reversed.

Britt and Morris, JJ., concur.

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

Campbell, J.

The defendant in this case submitted the complete transcript of the evidence under Rule 19(d)(2), but contrary to the provisions of that rule, the defendant did not attach an appendix to his brief setting forth in succinct language, with respect to those witnesses whose testimony he deemed to be pertinent to the questions raised on appeal, what he says the testimony of such witnesses would tend to establish. The defendant thereby imposed upon this Court the necessity of a voyage of discovery through the record. Ordinarily, this Court would dismiss such an appeal ex mero motu for failure to comply with the rules. Despite the failure to comply with the rules of this Court, we have reviewed the testimony and are of the opinion that the failure of the State’s evidence to identify the merchandise sold to Demps as being the same merchandise taken from Gales Tavern places this case within the doctrine of State v. Parker, 268 N.C. 258, 150 S.E. 2d 428, and State v. Foster, 268 N.C. 480, 151 S.E. 2d 62. The motion for judgment as of nonsuit should have been allowed.

Reversed.

Britt and Morris, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 S.E.2d 97, 1 N.C. App. 603, 1968 N.C. App. LEXIS 1147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-evans-ncctapp-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack