State v. Harrison

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Harrison

313 S.E.2d 268, 67 N.C. App. 560, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3113

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedApril 3, 1984

DocketNo. 8310SC977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 313 S.E.2d 268 (State v. Harrison) 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. Harrison, 313 S.E.2d 268, 67 N.C. App. 560, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3113 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

EAGLES, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the fact that the State was allowed to admit into evidence and to publish to the jury the police officer’s copy of the arrest warrant which charged defendant with assault on a law enforcement officer. Defendant contends that he was prejudiced because this copy of the arrest warrant carried the officer’s handwritten notation that in District Court the defendant had been found guilty of the same offense for which he was being tried. We agree.

When a defendant takes an appeal of right to Superior Court, “it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial. The judgment appealed from is completely annulled and is not thereafter available for any purpose.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507, 173 S.E. 2d 897, --- (1970). Here, the officer’s copy of the arrest warrant that was admitted into evidence and published to the jury carried the clear notation: “Plead Not Guilty 11/5/82 Found Guilty — Notice of Appeal.” This notation placed before the jury the information that this case had been previously adjudicated and that defendant had entered a not guilty plea and had been found guilty of the offense for which he was being tried. To inform the jury that another court has already tried the case and found defendant guilty is clearly prejudicial error. We hold that the State may not make this information available to the jury. We therefore remand for a new trial.

Because we remand for a new trial, it is unnecessary to discuss defendant’s other assignments of error.

New trial.

Judges WEBB and BECTON concur.

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

EAGLES, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the fact that the State was allowed to admit into evidence and to publish to the jury the police officer’s copy of the arrest warrant which charged defendant with assault on a law enforcement officer. Defendant contends that he was prejudiced because this copy of the arrest warrant carried the officer’s handwritten notation that in District Court the defendant had been found guilty of the same offense for which he was being tried. We agree.

When a defendant takes an appeal of right to Superior Court, “it is as if the case had been brought there originally and there had been no previous trial. The judgment appealed from is completely annulled and is not thereafter available for any purpose.” State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 507, 173 S.E. 2d 897, --- (1970). Here, the officer’s copy of the arrest warrant that was admitted into evidence and published to the jury carried the clear notation: “Plead Not Guilty 11/5/82 Found Guilty — Notice of Appeal.” This notation placed before the jury the information that this case had been previously adjudicated and that defendant had entered a not guilty plea and had been found guilty of the offense for which he was being tried. To inform the jury that another court has already tried the case and found defendant guilty is clearly prejudicial error. We hold that the State may not make this information available to the jury. We therefore remand for a new trial.

Because we remand for a new trial, it is unnecessary to discuss defendant’s other assignments of error.

New trial.

Judges WEBB and BECTON concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

313 S.E.2d 268, 67 N.C. App. 560, 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 3113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harrison-ncctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack