State v. Harrelson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Harrelson

144 S.E.2d 650, 265 N.C. 589, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1057

DecidedNovember 10, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E.2d 650 (State v. Harrelson) 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. Harrelson, 144 S.E.2d 650, 265 N.C. 589, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1057 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cubiam.

The defendant assigns as error (1) the Court’s failure to exclude the defendant’s admission to the arresting officer on the ground the officer failed to warn him of his constitutional rights to remain silent; (2) the court failed to direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of the evidence.

Officer Denny testified he went to the scene of the accident, sent the injured man, Bell, to the hospital, and ascertained from a bystander the description and license number of the vehicle which struck Bell and failed to stop. Through the Motor Vehicles Registration Department the officer ascertained that the license had been issued to the defendant, residing in Greensboro. Officer Denny contacted the police department in Greensboro. Soon thereafter the defendant called the police department in Raleigh and admitted over the telephone to Officer Denny that he was in Raleigh on South Street, going west, when this man, James Bell, walked out into the street and into the side of his car. “I did not tell him that anything he told me might be used against him. Actually, I didn’t have a chance to tell him that. I didn’t tell him that before he made a statement to me.”

The record fails to show wherein the defendant’s constitutional rights were denied him. Under the circumstances Officer Denny’s evidence as to the admissions was competent. The evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to sustain the verdict.

No error.

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

Pee Cubiam.

The defendant assigns as error (1) the Court’s failure to exclude the defendant’s admission to the arresting officer on the ground the officer failed to warn him of his constitutional rights to remain silent; (2) the court failed to direct a verdict of not guilty at the close of the evidence.

Officer Denny testified he went to the scene of the accident, sent the injured man, Bell, to the hospital, and ascertained from a bystander the description and license number of the vehicle which struck Bell and failed to stop. Through the Motor Vehicles Registration Department the officer ascertained that the license had been issued to the defendant, residing in Greensboro. Officer Denny contacted the police department in Greensboro. Soon thereafter the defendant called the police department in Raleigh and admitted over the telephone to Officer Denny that he was in Raleigh on South Street, going west, when this man, James Bell, walked out into the street and into the side of his car. “I did not tell him that anything he told me might be used against him. Actually, I didn’t have a chance to tell him that. I didn’t tell him that before he made a statement to me.”

The record fails to show wherein the defendant’s constitutional rights were denied him. Under the circumstances Officer Denny’s evidence as to the admissions was competent. The evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to sustain the verdict.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 650, 265 N.C. 589, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1057, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harrelson-nc-1965.