State v. Kistler

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Kistler

185 S.E.2d 596, 13 N.C. App. 431, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2258

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 12, 1972

Docket7110SC713

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 185 S.E.2d 596 (State v. Kistler) 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. Kistler, 185 S.E.2d 596, 13 N.C. App. 431, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2258 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

*433 VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s assignments of error directed to the admission into evidence of the money order receipts are overruled. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the admission of the receipts did not constitute prejudicial error.

Defendant’s next assignment of error, that the court failed to grant his motion for nonsuit, is overruled. Although the defendant was not present in his residence at the time the drugs were seized, the State’s evidence was plenary to show that defendant possessed the drugs within the meaning of the statute. See State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406, 183 S.E. 2d 680, and authorities cited. See also Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732, 173 S.E. 2d 799, a case where the facts, in many respects, are similar to those in the case at hand.

Defendant’s remaining assignments of error have been carefully considered and the same are overruled. Defendant received a fair trial free of 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

*433 VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s assignments of error directed to the admission into evidence of the money order receipts are overruled. We hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the admission of the receipts did not constitute prejudicial error.

Defendant’s next assignment of error, that the court failed to grant his motion for nonsuit, is overruled. Although the defendant was not present in his residence at the time the drugs were seized, the State’s evidence was plenary to show that defendant possessed the drugs within the meaning of the statute. See State v. Allen, 279 N.C. 406, 183 S.E. 2d 680, and authorities cited. See also Ritter v. Commonwealth, 210 Va. 732, 173 S.E. 2d 799, a case where the facts, in many respects, are similar to those in the case at hand.

Defendant’s remaining assignments of error have been carefully considered and the same are overruled. Defendant received a fair trial free of prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E.2d 596, 13 N.C. App. 431, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 2258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-kistler-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack