State v. Wyatt

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Wyatt

179 S.E.2d 159, 10 N.C. App. 538, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1669

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 24, 1971

DocketNo. 7123SC57

StatusPublished

This text of 179 S.E.2d 159 (State v. Wyatt) 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. Wyatt, 179 S.E.2d 159, 10 N.C. App. 538, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1669 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant brings forth two assignments of error which may be considered together as presenting one question: Did the court commit prejudicial error in allowing the solicitor to refer to the witness, James R. Durham, as an expert, and by allowing him to give his opinion as an expert that the alleged forged signature was written by the defendant when he had not been formally tendered and found by the court to be an expert in the field of handwriting analysis?

Defendant, in his brief, candidly admits that our Supreme Court has held that the decision of the trial court to allow a witness to testify as an expert after the witness has been tendered by the State as such is tantamount to the trial court finding that the witness is an expert in the field of his testimony. State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158, 95 S.E. 2d 548 (1956) ; Teague v. Power Co., 258 N.C. 759, 129 S.E. 2d 507 (1963).

The defendant contends, however, that these cases are inapplicable to the instant case because there was no formal tender by the State of the witness as an expert. This contention is without merit. The record on appeal is replete with testimony establishing the witness’ qualifications as an expert in the field of handwriting analysis. While the better practice would have been for the State to have tendered the witness as an expert, and for the court to have ruled on the tender, we do not feel that a failure to do so under the facts of this case prejudiced the defendant in any way. State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E. 2d 839 (1969).

We hold that there was no prejudicial error committed in the defendant’s trial.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

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

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant brings forth two assignments of error which may be considered together as presenting one question: Did the court commit prejudicial error in allowing the solicitor to refer to the witness, James R. Durham, as an expert, and by allowing him to give his opinion as an expert that the alleged forged signature was written by the defendant when he had not been formally tendered and found by the court to be an expert in the field of handwriting analysis?

Defendant, in his brief, candidly admits that our Supreme Court has held that the decision of the trial court to allow a witness to testify as an expert after the witness has been tendered by the State as such is tantamount to the trial court finding that the witness is an expert in the field of his testimony. State v. Moore, 245 N.C. 158, 95 S.E. 2d 548 (1956) ; Teague v. Power Co., 258 N.C. 759, 129 S.E. 2d 507 (1963).

The defendant contends, however, that these cases are inapplicable to the instant case because there was no formal tender by the State of the witness as an expert. This contention is without merit. The record on appeal is replete with testimony establishing the witness’ qualifications as an expert in the field of handwriting analysis. While the better practice would have been for the State to have tendered the witness as an expert, and for the court to have ruled on the tender, we do not feel that a failure to do so under the facts of this case prejudiced the defendant in any way. State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E. 2d 839 (1969).

We hold that there was no prejudicial error committed in the defendant’s trial.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 S.E.2d 159, 10 N.C. App. 538, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wyatt-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack