State v. Oldham

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Oldham

177 S.E.2d 769, 10 N.C. App. 172, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1221

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 16, 1970

DocketNo. 7015SC605

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 177 S.E.2d 769 (State v. Oldham) 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. Oldham, 177 S.E.2d 769, 10 N.C. App. 172, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1221 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is that it was error to admit the result of the blood test. He contends that it was not timely made and that a test made two hours and twelve minutes’ after the occurrence is without probative value. Defendant admits that the test was properly administered and that there is ample evidence that defendant consumed no alcohol between the time of the wreck and the time the test was administered. Under all the circumstances of this case we hold that the result of the test had probative value and was properly admitted into evidence. This assignment of error is overruled.

Defendant’s final assignment of error is to the charge of •the court and is set out as follows:

“The defendant assigns as error those portions of the charge of the Court as they appear of record herein.”

Although the assignment of error is insufficient, we have carefully reviewed the entire charge of the court and find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Morris concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant’s first assignment of error is that it was error to admit the result of the blood test. He contends that it was not timely made and that a test made two hours and twelve minutes’ after the occurrence is without probative value. Defendant admits that the test was properly administered and that there is ample evidence that defendant consumed no alcohol between the time of the wreck and the time the test was administered. Under all the circumstances of this case we hold that the result of the test had probative value and was properly admitted into evidence. This assignment of error is overruled.

Defendant’s final assignment of error is to the charge of •the court and is set out as follows:

“The defendant assigns as error those portions of the charge of the Court as they appear of record herein.”

Although the assignment of error is insufficient, we have carefully reviewed the entire charge of the court and find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Judges Brock and Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

177 S.E.2d 769, 10 N.C. App. 172, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-oldham-ncctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack