State v. Rhodes

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Rhodes

287 S.E.2d 898, 305 N.C. 294, 1982 N.C. LEXIS 1267

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 3, 1982

DocketNo. 152A81

StatusPublished

This text of 287 S.E.2d 898 (State v. Rhodes) 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. Rhodes, 287 S.E.2d 898, 305 N.C. 294, 1982 N.C. LEXIS 1267 (N.C. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

An adequate review of the evidence is contained in the opinion by the Court of Appeals. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to instruct the jury on the defendant’s right to resist an arrest pursuant to an illegal entry into his home, (2) instructing the jury that the defendant’s right to resist excessive force was conditioned on their finding that both Officer Hastings and Officer Workman used excessive force against the defendant, and (3) failing to instruct the jury on defendant’s right to resist an arrest by an officer who does not inform the defendant that he is under arrest.

We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the Court of Appeals and the briefs and authorities relating to the defendant’s contentions set out above. We conclude that the result reached by the Court of Appeals, its reasoning, and the legal principles enunciated by it are correct and adopt that opinion as our own.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

An adequate review of the evidence is contained in the opinion by the Court of Appeals. Defendant contends that the trial court erred in (1) failing to instruct the jury on the defendant’s right to resist an arrest pursuant to an illegal entry into his home, (2) instructing the jury that the defendant’s right to resist excessive force was conditioned on their finding that both Officer Hastings and Officer Workman used excessive force against the defendant, and (3) failing to instruct the jury on defendant’s right to resist an arrest by an officer who does not inform the defendant that he is under arrest.

We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the Court of Appeals and the briefs and authorities relating to the defendant’s contentions set out above. We conclude that the result reached by the Court of Appeals, its reasoning, and the legal principles enunciated by it are correct and adopt that opinion as our own.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 S.E.2d 898, 305 N.C. 294, 1982 N.C. LEXIS 1267, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rhodes-nc-1982.