Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/State v. Love

State v. Love

153 S.E.2d 381, 269 N.C. 691, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1134
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 22, 1967·No. 250·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant’s first assignment of error challenges the Court’s refusal to sequester the witnesses upon the appellant’s motion. The refusal was in the Court’s discretion and not reviewable. State v. Spencer, 239 N.C. 604, 80 S.E. 2d 670. Another assignment involved the admissibility of evidence. Any error in this respect was cured by the failure to place in the record the excluded evidence so the Court could determine its materiality. In one instance evidence of the same import was admitted without objection.

The record does not disclose any reason why the verdict and judgment should be disturbed.

No error.

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

State v. Love, 153 S.E.2d 381, 269 N.C. 691, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1134 (N.C. 1967).

153 S.E.2d 381 (State v. Love) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Miller
220 S.E.2d 326 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
State v. Carnes
196 S.E.2d 56 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Morgan
177 S.E.2d 457 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Sparrow
173 S.E.2d 897 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1970)
State v. Barrow
172 S.E.2d 512 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1970)
State v. Barrow
170 S.E.2d 563 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Hardee
169 S.E.2d 533 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Clayton
158 S.E.2d 557 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Spence
155 S.E.2d 802 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)