State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Moore

211 S.E.2d 470, 24 N.C. App. 582, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2441

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1975

DocketNo. 7425SC896

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 S.E.2d 470 (State v. Moore) 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. Moore, 211 S.E.2d 470, 24 N.C. App. 582, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2441 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

The only assignment of error that defendant brings forward and argues in his brief is that the trial judge erred in denying defendant’s motion for a postponement of his trial. The reason stated for the motion was that just before defendant’s case was called for trial, another defendant, represented by the same attorney who represented defendant, had been tried on a charge of escape and convicted; that some of the same jurors who had served in the trial of the other case would be called to serve in the trial of defendant’s case. We find no merit in this assignment.

Rulings on motions for postponement of trials and competency of jurors are discretionary with the trial judge and will not be reviewed absent a showing of abuse of discretion or an error of law. G.S. 9-14; State v. Watson, 281 N.C. 221, 188 S.E. 2d 289 (1972) ; State v. Strickland, 229 N.C. 201, 49 S.E. 2d 469 (1948). We hold that under the facts appearing in this case, defendant was not entitled to a continuance as a matter of law and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See State v. Martin, 21 N.C. App. 645, 205 S.E. 2d 583 (1974) ; and State v. Haltom, 19 N.C. App. 646, 199 S.E. 2d 708 (1973).

No error.

Judges Morris and Clark concur.

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

BRITT, Judge.

The only assignment of error that defendant brings forward and argues in his brief is that the trial judge erred in denying defendant’s motion for a postponement of his trial. The reason stated for the motion was that just before defendant’s case was called for trial, another defendant, represented by the same attorney who represented defendant, had been tried on a charge of escape and convicted; that some of the same jurors who had served in the trial of the other case would be called to serve in the trial of defendant’s case. We find no merit in this assignment.

Rulings on motions for postponement of trials and competency of jurors are discretionary with the trial judge and will not be reviewed absent a showing of abuse of discretion or an error of law. G.S. 9-14; State v. Watson, 281 N.C. 221, 188 S.E. 2d 289 (1972) ; State v. Strickland, 229 N.C. 201, 49 S.E. 2d 469 (1948). We hold that under the facts appearing in this case, defendant was not entitled to a continuance as a matter of law and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See State v. Martin, 21 N.C. App. 645, 205 S.E. 2d 583 (1974) ; and State v. Haltom, 19 N.C. App. 646, 199 S.E. 2d 708 (1973).

No error.

Judges Morris and Clark concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.E.2d 470, 24 N.C. App. 582, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack