State v. . Setzer

153 S.E. 118, 198 N.C. 663, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 442
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 7, 1930·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

The sheriff was permitted to testify, over objection of defendant, that one John Burns who had been arrested as a suspect, prior to the defendant, and charged with entering the store and stealing the goods in question, said to him while in his custody: “If you will get Henry Setzer you will be on the right track.” This evidence was incompetent as against the defendant, who was not present at the time the statement was made, and should have been excluded. S. v. Simmons, ante, 599; S. v. Green, 193 N. C., 302, 136 S. E., 729.

The declaration of a third person, not an agent of the party sought to be affected, made in the absence of such party, is inadmissible as hearsay. S. v. Lassiter, 191 N. C., 210, 131 S. E., 577; Daniel v. Dixon, 161 N. C., 377, 77 S. E., 305.

The error is just one of those mishaps which, now and then, befalls the most circumspect in the trial of causes on the circuit. S. v. Griggs, 197 N. C., 352, 148 S. E., 547. But the defendant has appealed, and he is entitled to a ruling on the exception.

New trial.

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

State v. . Setzer, 153 S.E. 118, 198 N.C. 663, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 442 (N.C. 1930).

153 S.E. 118 (State v. . Setzer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. . Kluttz
175 S.E. 81 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
State v. . Hicks
157 S.E. 851 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)