State v. Harvey

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Harvey

185 S.E.2d 601, 13 N.C. App. 433, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2259

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 12, 1972

DocketNo. 712SC738

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 185 S.E.2d 601 (State v. Harvey) 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. Harvey, 185 S.E.2d 601, 13 N.C. App. 433, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2259 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

The major portion of defendant’s well-researched argument concerns his contention that it was error to admit evidence as to the marijuana seeds at the time of defendant’s arrest. In this connection, we hold that the findings of fact by the trial judge are based on competent evidence and are amply sufficient to support his conclusions of law. Moreover, nothing appears in this record which would have required the suppression of the evidence. The law enforcement officer made a lawful entry into the home of defendant to serve a valid arrest warrant. In the [435]*435process the officer observed within his plain view a quantity of marijuana, the possession of which constitutes a crime. Defendant’s assignments of error directed to the admissibility of such evidence are overruled.

Defendant’s remaining assignments of error have been carefully considered and the same are overruled. In the entire trial we find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

The major portion of defendant’s well-researched argument concerns his contention that it was error to admit evidence as to the marijuana seeds at the time of defendant’s arrest. In this connection, we hold that the findings of fact by the trial judge are based on competent evidence and are amply sufficient to support his conclusions of law. Moreover, nothing appears in this record which would have required the suppression of the evidence. The law enforcement officer made a lawful entry into the home of defendant to serve a valid arrest warrant. In the [435]*435process the officer observed within his plain view a quantity of marijuana, the possession of which constitutes a crime. Defendant’s assignments of error directed to the admissibility of such evidence are overruled.

Defendant’s remaining assignments of error have been carefully considered and the same are overruled. In the entire trial we find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E.2d 601, 13 N.C. App. 433, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harvey-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack