State v. Hinton

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Hinton

200 S.E.2d 836, 20 N.C. App. 210, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1520

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 12, 1973

DocketNo. 738SC777

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 S.E.2d 836 (State v. Hinton) 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. Hinton, 200 S.E.2d 836, 20 N.C. App. 210, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1520 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Chief Judge.

The trial court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject matter. The indictments were proper in form and defendant was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. Defendant was clearly identified by several persons who observed his conduct on the day in question. The personal property of which he had possession before undertaking to hide it was clearly identified as having been taken from the homes of Mr. and Mrs. Best and Mr. and Mrs. Howell without their knowledge or consent. The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty. The case was presented to the jury upon applicable principles of law. The jury verdict was unambiguous and the sentences imposed are well within the maximum authorized.

Counsel has perfected this appeal at the insistence of defendant, although counsel candidly states he is unable to find error. At counsel’s request, we have reviewed the record for possible prejudicial error and find none.

No error.

Judges Parker and Baley concur.

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

BROCK, Chief Judge.

The trial court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject matter. The indictments were proper in form and defendant was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. Defendant was clearly identified by several persons who observed his conduct on the day in question. The personal property of which he had possession before undertaking to hide it was clearly identified as having been taken from the homes of Mr. and Mrs. Best and Mr. and Mrs. Howell without their knowledge or consent. The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty. The case was presented to the jury upon applicable principles of law. The jury verdict was unambiguous and the sentences imposed are well within the maximum authorized.

Counsel has perfected this appeal at the insistence of defendant, although counsel candidly states he is unable to find error. At counsel’s request, we have reviewed the record for possible prejudicial error and find none.

No error.

Judges Parker and Baley concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E.2d 836, 20 N.C. App. 210, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1520, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hinton-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack