State v. Laws

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Laws

191 S.E.2d 401, 16 N.C. App. 169, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1665

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 20, 1972

DocketNo. 7220SC607

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 S.E.2d 401 (State v. Laws) 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. Laws, 191 S.E.2d 401, 16 N.C. App. 169, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1665 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the State’s evidence was insufficient to be submitted to the jury. This contention is without merit. It is true, as defendant points out, that some of the testimony bearing upon some elements of the offense constituted hearsay evidence. However, defendant did not object to any of the testimony offered. When hearsay is admitted without objection, it may be considered and given any eviden-tiary value which it may possess. State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 66 S.E. 2d 667. See also In re Dunston, 12 N.C. App. 33, 182 S.E. 2d 9; State v. Davis, 8 N.C. App. 589, 174 S.E. 2d 865.

It appears clear from the record that the evidence was plenary to support the verdict of the jury. In our opinion no error has been shown which is sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial.

No error.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

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

GRAHAM, Judge.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the State’s evidence was insufficient to be submitted to the jury. This contention is without merit. It is true, as defendant points out, that some of the testimony bearing upon some elements of the offense constituted hearsay evidence. However, defendant did not object to any of the testimony offered. When hearsay is admitted without objection, it may be considered and given any eviden-tiary value which it may possess. State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 66 S.E. 2d 667. See also In re Dunston, 12 N.C. App. 33, 182 S.E. 2d 9; State v. Davis, 8 N.C. App. 589, 174 S.E. 2d 865.

It appears clear from the record that the evidence was plenary to support the verdict of the jury. In our opinion no error has been shown which is sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial.

No error.

Judges Parker and Vaughn concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 S.E.2d 401, 16 N.C. App. 169, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-laws-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack