State v. Harrell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Harrell

192 S.E.2d 645, 16 N.C. App. 620, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1779

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 22, 1972

Docket721SC787

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 192 S.E.2d 645 (State v. Harrell) 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. Harrell, 192 S.E.2d 645, 16 N.C. App. 620, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1779 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is directed to the admission of the results of the breathalyzer test. No objection to the admission of this evidence was made at trial and no exception to its admission appears in the record. Even if the evidence were inadmissible, which is not conceded, defendant’s objection comes too late. State v. Davis, 8 N.C. App. 589, 174 S.E. 2d 865.

Defendant contends in the alternative that the failure of his privately employed counsel to object to the evidence in question shows that he had ineffective counsel and entitles him *622 to a new trial. This argument has no merit. A mere error in judgment or tactical blunder by counsel is not grounds for a new trial. Moreover, the failure of counsel to object in this instance could very well have been a deliberate choice of trial strategy, especially since the results of the breathalyzer test tended to show a lesser degree of intoxication than did the testimony of the officers.

The evidence was plenary to support the verdict of the jury, and the record affirmatively shows that defendant’s counsel ably represented him at trial. We find that defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Hedrick concur.

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

GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is directed to the admission of the results of the breathalyzer test. No objection to the admission of this evidence was made at trial and no exception to its admission appears in the record. Even if the evidence were inadmissible, which is not conceded, defendant’s objection comes too late. State v. Davis, 8 N.C. App. 589, 174 S.E. 2d 865.

Defendant contends in the alternative that the failure of his privately employed counsel to object to the evidence in question shows that he had ineffective counsel and entitles him *622 to a new trial. This argument has no merit. A mere error in judgment or tactical blunder by counsel is not grounds for a new trial. Moreover, the failure of counsel to object in this instance could very well have been a deliberate choice of trial strategy, especially since the results of the breathalyzer test tended to show a lesser degree of intoxication than did the testimony of the officers.

The evidence was plenary to support the verdict of the jury, and the record affirmatively shows that defendant’s counsel ably represented him at trial. We find that defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Hedrick concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E.2d 645, 16 N.C. App. 620, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harrell-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack