State v. Garner, 194.
| Decision Date | 19 October 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 194.,194. |
| Citation | 166 S.E. 180,203 N.C. 361 |
| Parties | STATE. v. GARNER et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Duplin County; Sinclair, Judge.
Joe Garner and another were convicted under an indictment charging robbery and cognate offenses, and they appeal.
No error.
Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendants Joe Garner and Herbert Garner and two others with robbing the Bank of Magnolia of $14,000 on January 12, 1932, and cognate offenses, set out in a five-count bill.
The defendants were arrested on Tuesday, February 2d, the bill was returned the next day and the trial was had on Friday of the same week. The defendants asked for a continuance, or time within which to prepare their defense. Motion overruled; exception.
From convictions and judgments thereon, the defendants appeal, assigning errors.
D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
R. D. Johnson and J. T. Gresham, Jr., both of Warsaw, for appellants.
[1-31 The only exception, which needs to be specifically noticed, is the one addressed to the refusal of the court to grant the defendants' motion for a continuance. While, ordinarily, this is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, nevertheless, it should be remembered that defendants have a constitutional right of confrontation, which cannot lawfully be taken from them, and this includes the right of a fair opportunity to face "the accusers and witnesses with other testimony." Section 11, Declaration of Rights; State v. Davis, 203 N.C. 13, 35, 164 S. E. 737; State v. Ross, 193 N. C. 25, 136 S. E. 193. But the record is barren of any affidavits or evidence tending to show a denial of this right. State v. Rhodes, 202 N. C. 101, 161 S. E. 722; State v. Sauls, 190 N. C. 810, 130 S. E. 848; State v. Riley, 188 N. C. 72, 123 S. E. 303. In the absence of a clear showing, the exception must be overruled. The burden is on appellants to show error, and they must make it appear clearly, as the presumption is against them. Baker v. Clayton, 202 N. C. 741, 164 S. E. 233; Poindexter v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 201 N. C. 833, 160 S. E. 767.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...accusers and witnesses with other testimony," but the burden is on defendant to show a clear denial of this right. State v. Garner, 203 N.C. 361, 166 S.E. 180, 181 (1932). Defendant, however, only makes a bald assertion that his right to confront the State's witnesses was denied and does no......
-
State v. Godwin
... ... ***." State v. Rhodes, 202 N.C. 101, 102, 103, ... 161 S.E. 722; State v. Lea, 203 N.C. 13, 24, 164 ... S.E. 737; State v. Garner, 203 N.C. 361, 166 S.E ... 180; State v. Banks, 204 N.C. 233, 237, 167 S.E ... 851; State v. Whitfield, 206 N.C. 696, 698, 175 S.E ... etc. We cannot so hold. State v. Puckett, 211 N.C ... 66, 189 S.E. 183; State v. Linney, 212 N.C. 739, 194 ... S.E. 470. The evidence and charge fully set forth the offense ... with which defendant was charged and if defendant wanted the ... charge more ... ...
-
State v. Banks
... ... [167 S.E. 853] ... continuance and in doing so exercised discretion which was ... free from abuse. State v. Garner, 203 N.C. 361, 166 ... S.E. 180; State v. Rhodes, 202 N.C. 101, 161 S.E ... 722; Wolf v. Goldstein, 192 N.C. 818, 135 S.E. 39; ... State v ... ...
-
State v. Hackney
...the right of a fair opportunity 'to confront the accusers and witnesses with other testimony.' N.C.Const., Art. I, § 11; State v. Garner, 203 N.C. 361, 166 S.E. 180. The word confront secures to the accused the right to have his witnesses in court, and to examine them in his behalf. State v......