State v. Jackson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Jackson

232 S.E.2d 407, 292 N.C. 203, 1977 N.C. LEXIS 1053

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 7, 1977

Docket1

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 232 S.E.2d 407 (State v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 232 S.E.2d 407, 292 N.C. 203, 1977 N.C. LEXIS 1053 (N.C. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

LAKE, Justice.

It is well settled that, upon a motion to suppress evidence, the proper procedure is for the judge, in the absence of the jury, to hear the evidence and make findings of fact upon *210 which the admissibility of the allegedly incompetent evidence depends. His findings of fact, if supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal. State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303, 214 S.E. 2d 742 (1975) ; State v. Pruitt, 286 N.C. 442, 212 S.E. 2d 92 (1975) ; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1, cert. den., 386 U.S. 911 (1967) ; State v. Hines, 266 N.C. 1, 145 S.E. 2d 363 (1965). Quite obviously, the findings of fact made by Judge Bailey, which the defendant assigns as error, were amply supported by competent evidence. There is, therefore, no merit in this assignment of error.

The record on appeal does not indicate whether the defendant testified before the jury in his own behalf or, if so, whether he then adhered to his denial that he made the incriminating statements attributed to him by Mr. DeSoto and Mr. Crum-pler. If he did so testify before the jury, this conflict between his testimony and that of the witnesses for the State, assuming that they testified before the jury as to the making of such statements by the defendant, simply raised a question of fact for the jury which determined that matter in favor of the State.

The findings of fact made by Judge Bailey concerning the voluntary nature of the statements made by the defendant to Mr. DeSoto and Mr. Grumpier being conclusive upon appeal, there was no error in admitting the inculpatory statements by the defendant into evidence before the jury, assuming that they were so admitted. Consequently, there is no merit in the defendant’s second assignment of error.

No error.

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

LAKE, Justice.

It is well settled that, upon a motion to suppress evidence, the proper procedure is for the judge, in the absence of the jury, to hear the evidence and make findings of fact upon *210 which the admissibility of the allegedly incompetent evidence depends. His findings of fact, if supported by competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal. State v. Thompson, 287 N.C. 303, 214 S.E. 2d 742 (1975) ; State v. Pruitt, 286 N.C. 442, 212 S.E. 2d 92 (1975) ; State v. Gray, 268 N.C. 69, 150 S.E. 2d 1, cert. den., 386 U.S. 911 (1967) ; State v. Hines, 266 N.C. 1, 145 S.E. 2d 363 (1965). Quite obviously, the findings of fact made by Judge Bailey, which the defendant assigns as error, were amply supported by competent evidence. There is, therefore, no merit in this assignment of error.

The record on appeal does not indicate whether the defendant testified before the jury in his own behalf or, if so, whether he then adhered to his denial that he made the incriminating statements attributed to him by Mr. DeSoto and Mr. Crum-pler. If he did so testify before the jury, this conflict between his testimony and that of the witnesses for the State, assuming that they testified before the jury as to the making of such statements by the defendant, simply raised a question of fact for the jury which determined that matter in favor of the State.

The findings of fact made by Judge Bailey concerning the voluntary nature of the statements made by the defendant to Mr. DeSoto and Mr. Grumpier being conclusive upon appeal, there was no error in admitting the inculpatory statements by the defendant into evidence before the jury, assuming that they were so admitted. Consequently, there is no merit in the defendant’s second assignment of error.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 S.E.2d 407, 292 N.C. 203, 1977 N.C. LEXIS 1053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-nc-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack