State v. Ingram

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Ingram

284 S.E.2d 747, 55 N.C. App. 265, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 3005

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 15, 1981

DocketNo. 8120SC427

StatusPublished

This text of 284 S.E.2d 747 (State v. Ingram) 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. Ingram, 284 S.E.2d 747, 55 N.C. App. 265, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 3005 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, Judge.

The defendant assigns error to the court’s allowing the jury to examine the exhibits in the jury box while a guilty plea was being taken. He contends that the taking of a guilty plea engendered an atmosphere of guilt finding in the courtroom which was prejudicial to the defendant. We cannot so hold. There is nothing in the record to show that the traffic case in which a guilty plea was accepted in any way related to the case upon which the jury was deliberating. We cannot conclude the jury heard anything which would affect their deliberations.

We have examined defendant’s other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

No error.

Judges Martin (Robert M.) and Wells concur.

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

WEBB, Judge.

The defendant assigns error to the court’s allowing the jury to examine the exhibits in the jury box while a guilty plea was being taken. He contends that the taking of a guilty plea engendered an atmosphere of guilt finding in the courtroom which was prejudicial to the defendant. We cannot so hold. There is nothing in the record to show that the traffic case in which a guilty plea was accepted in any way related to the case upon which the jury was deliberating. We cannot conclude the jury heard anything which would affect their deliberations.

We have examined defendant’s other assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

No error.

Judges Martin (Robert M.) and Wells concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.E.2d 747, 55 N.C. App. 265, 1981 N.C. App. LEXIS 3005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ingram-ncctapp-1981.