State v. Flinchem

100 S.E.2d 206, 247 N.C. 118, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 531
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 6, 1957·No. 363·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Winborne, C. J.:

Among the exceptions taken by defendant in the course of the trial in Superior Court, this Court is of opinion that the matter of exclusion of testimony of the witness Dowell to which Exception No. 8 is directed, constitutes error prejudicial to defendant, and entitles him to a new trial.

In this State a lay witness is competent to testify whether or not in his opinion a person was under the influence of an intoxicant on a given occasion on which the witness observed him. See S. v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259, 84 S.E. 2d, 899, and cases there cited.

*121 Since there is to be a new trial, it is not deemed expedient to treat other assignments of error. The matters to which they relate may not then recur.

For error pointed out, let there be a

New trial.

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

State v. Flinchem, 100 S.E.2d 206, 247 N.C. 118, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 531 (N.C. 1957).

100 S.E.2d 206 (State v. Flinchem) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Lloyd
235 S.E.2d 281 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Lindley
210 S.E.2d 207 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Fletcher
181 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Cook
160 S.E.2d 49 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)