Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

266 N.C. 606

146 S.E.2d 666

State v. Ferebee

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 2, 1966

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1966-03-02

Relies on Harriet Cotton Mills v. Local Union No. 578, Textile Workers Union of America · State v. . Kelly · State v. Ipock

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1966-03-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2008 · most notably State v. Moore (1969), State v. Hewett (1967)

38 state decisions

20019661970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bobbitt, J.

¶1 Defendant’s purported assignments of error are not based on exceptions duly noted in apt time and are ineffectual. 1 Strong, N. C. Index, Appeal and Error § 19.

¶2 Defendant’s brief asserts the “Question Involved” is: “Did the Court, in refusing to continué this case to a subsequent term, deprive the defendant of constitutional rights to which he was entitled?”

¶3 “Granting or denying a motion for continuance rests in the sound discretion of the presiding judge and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal, except for abuse of discretion or a showing the defendant has been deprived of a fair trial.” S. v. Ipock, 242 N.C. 119, 86 S.E. 2d 798; 1 Strong, N. C. Index, Criminal Law § 86. Defendant has failed to show abuse of discretion or that he has been deprived of a fair trial.

¶4 “In the application of this fundamental principle (the right of confrontation) it has been held that in a capital felony the prisoner cannot waive his right to be present at any stage of the trial. Not only has he a right to be present; he must be present. S. v. Kelly, 97 N.C. 404; S. v. Dry, 152 N.C. 813. In felonies less than capital the right to be present can be waived only by the defendant himself (S. v. Jenkins, 84 N.C. 813), but in misdemeanors the right may be waived by the defendant through his counsel with the consent of the court. S. v. Dry, supra; S. v. Cherry, 154 N.C. 624.” S. v. O’Neal, 197 N.C. 548, 149 S.E. 860; S. v. Hartsfield, 188 N.C. 357, 124 S.E. 629; Cotton Mills v. Local 578, 251 N.C. 218, 228-229, 111 5.E. 2d 457. True, a sentence imposing corporal punishment may not be pronounced against a defendant in his absence. S. v. Brooks, 211 *610 N.C. 702, 191 S.E. 749, and cases cited. Here, the judgment pronounced imposes no active or suspended sentence of corporal punishment. The fine and costs are collectible as provided in G.S. 15-185. See S. v. Bryant, 251 N.C. 423, 111 S.E. 2d 591.

¶5 Since defendant has failed to show error, Judge Clarkson’s judgment is affirmed.

¶6 Affirmed.

Moore, J., not sitting.
/266/nc/606 · .json · Public domain