State v. Flinchem

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Flinchem

100 S.E.2d 206, 247 N.C. 118, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 531

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 6, 1957

Docket363

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

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

Pincite

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