Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 N.C. App. 210

State v. Hinton

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided December 12, 1973

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · decided 1973-12-12

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1979

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1973-12-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BROCK, Chief Judge.

¶1The trial court had jurisdiction of the person of the defendant and of the subject matter. The indictments were proper in form and defendant was represented by counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. Defendant was clearly identified by several persons who observed his conduct on the day in question. The personal property of which he had possession before undertaking to hide it was clearly identified as having been taken from the homes of Mr. and Mrs. Best and Mr. and Mrs. Howell without their knowledge or consent. The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of guilty. The case was presented to the jury upon applicable principles of law. The jury verdict was unambiguous and the sentences imposed are well within the maximum authorized.

¶2Counsel has perfected this appeal at the insistence of defendant, although counsel candidly states he is unable to find error. At counsel’s request, we have reviewed the record for possible prejudicial error and find none.

¶3No error.

Judges Parker and Baley concur.
/20/ncapp/210 · .json · Public domain