State v. Poplin

282 S.E.2d 420, 304 N.C. 185, 1981 N.C. LEXIS 1323
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 6, 1981
Docket3
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 282 S.E.2d 420 (State v. Poplin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Poplin, 282 S.E.2d 420, 304 N.C. 185, 1981 N.C. LEXIS 1323 (N.C. 1981).

Opinion

MEYER, Justice.

Counsel for defendant excepted to certain trial proceedings and brought forward five assignments of error. In his brief, he withdraws all five assignments of error as being without merit, but requests that we review the record on appeal to determine whether there exists any prejudicial and reversible error in the proceedings below.

Rule 28 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure limits our review to questions presented in the briefs which are supported by arguments and authorities upon which the parties rely. State v. Cohen, 301 N.C. 220, 270 S.E. 2d 416 (1980); State v. Adams, 298 N.C. 802, 260 S.E. 2d 431 (1979). Here, defendant made no arguments in his brief and cited no authority. Therefore, nothing is presented to us for review. However, Rule 2 of the Rules of Ap *187 pellate Procedure allows the appellate court to suspend or vary the requirements or provisions of the Rules in order to prevent manifest injustice to a party or to expedite decision in the public interest. Because of the severity of the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the defendant, we elected, pursuant to our inherent authority and Rule 2, to review the entire record. After careful review, we conclude that the charges were properly presented to the jury for decision since there was substantial evidence of every essential element of the offenses charged in the bills of indictment and that the defendant was the perpetrator of those offenses. See State v. Adams, 298 N.C. 802, 260 S.E. 2d 431 (1979); State v. Roseman, 279 N.C. 573, 184 S.E. 2d 289 (1971). We find that the defendant had a fair trial, free of prejudicial error.

No error.

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

Related

State v. Kelliher
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2020
State v. Hart
644 S.E.2d 201 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2007)
Stann v. Levine
636 S.E.2d 214 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2006)
State v. Watts
616 S.E.2d 290 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2005)
State v. Kinch
331 S.E.2d 665 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
282 S.E.2d 420, 304 N.C. 185, 1981 N.C. LEXIS 1323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-poplin-nc-1981.