State v. Patterson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Patterson

204 S.E.2d 709, 21 N.C. App. 443, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1831

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 1, 1974

DocketNo. 742SC125

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 204 S.E.2d 709 (State v. Patterson) 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. Patterson, 204 S.E.2d 709, 21 N.C. App. 443, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1831 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant contends that she was entitled to a preliminary hearing as a means of discovering the State’s case against her. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. A defendant may be brought to trial on the basis of an indictment without the necessity of a preliminary hearing. State v. Harrington, 283 N.C. 527, 196 S.E. 2d 742, cert. denied, 38 L.Ed. 2d 249; State v. Foster, 282 N.C. 189, 192 S.E. 2d 320; State v. Hackney, 240 N.C. 230, 81 S.E. 2d 778.

The trial court did not err in allowing the State to try defendant for possession of heroin and also for distribution. Possession and distribution are separate and distinct offenses, and a defendant may be prosecuted for both without violating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. State v. Thornton, 283 N.C. 513, 196 S.E. 2d 701; State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 195 S.E. 2d 481.

Among the witnesses testifying for the State were Ray Eastman and W. H. Thompson. While cross-examining Eastman, counsel for defendant asked him about a civil action which defendant had filed against Thompson in a federal court. The trial court properly excluded this question. The federal action was only remotely relevant to the issues involved in the present case, and on cross-examination the trial judge has discretion to exclude questions which are “of only tenuous relevance.” 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.) § 35, at 108; see State v. Robinson, 280 N.C. 718, 187 S.E. 2d 20; State v. Chance, 279 N.C. 643, 185 S.E. 2d 227, vacated and remanded on other [445]*445grounds, 408 U.S. 940. Furthermore, when Thompson testified, counsel for defendant was allowed to cross-examine him about the federal lawsuit as fully as he desired.

Defendant has shown no prejudicial error at her trial.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.

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

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant contends that she was entitled to a preliminary hearing as a means of discovering the State’s case against her. However, the North Carolina Supreme Court has repeatedly held that there is no constitutional right to a preliminary hearing. A defendant may be brought to trial on the basis of an indictment without the necessity of a preliminary hearing. State v. Harrington, 283 N.C. 527, 196 S.E. 2d 742, cert. denied, 38 L.Ed. 2d 249; State v. Foster, 282 N.C. 189, 192 S.E. 2d 320; State v. Hackney, 240 N.C. 230, 81 S.E. 2d 778.

The trial court did not err in allowing the State to try defendant for possession of heroin and also for distribution. Possession and distribution are separate and distinct offenses, and a defendant may be prosecuted for both without violating the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. State v. Thornton, 283 N.C. 513, 196 S.E. 2d 701; State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 195 S.E. 2d 481.

Among the witnesses testifying for the State were Ray Eastman and W. H. Thompson. While cross-examining Eastman, counsel for defendant asked him about a civil action which defendant had filed against Thompson in a federal court. The trial court properly excluded this question. The federal action was only remotely relevant to the issues involved in the present case, and on cross-examination the trial judge has discretion to exclude questions which are “of only tenuous relevance.” 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.) § 35, at 108; see State v. Robinson, 280 N.C. 718, 187 S.E. 2d 20; State v. Chance, 279 N.C. 643, 185 S.E. 2d 227, vacated and remanded on other [445]*445grounds, 408 U.S. 940. Furthermore, when Thompson testified, counsel for defendant was allowed to cross-examine him about the federal lawsuit as fully as he desired.

Defendant has shown no prejudicial error at her trial.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 S.E.2d 709, 21 N.C. App. 443, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1831, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-patterson-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack