State v. Sentelle, 363.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 363.,363. |
| Citation | 193 S.E. 405,212 N.C. 386 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. SENTELLE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Montgomery County; J. A. Rousseau, Judge.
R. E. Sentelle was convicted of operating a motor vehicle on the public highway while under the influence of an intoxicant, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Criminal prosecution tried upon warrant charging operation of motor vehicle on the public highway while under the influence of an intoxicant.
Verdict: Guilty of driving drunk.
Judgment: Thirty days in jail, fine of $225, and depriving of right and surrender of license to operate motor vehicle for twelve months.
The defendant appeals to the Supreme Court, and assigns error.
Brock Hurley, of Troy, and Ehringhaus, Royall, Gosney & Smith, of Raleigh, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The case on appeal fails to disclose error.
On affidavit duly made warrant issued out of the recorder's court of Montgomery county charging that on or about the 27th day of March, 1937, defendant did unlawfully and willfully operate a motor vehicle on the public highway of Montgomery county while under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to the form of the statute. From judgment finding defendantguilty of driving while drunk and imposing jail sentence and fine, he appealed to the superior court.
When the case was called for trial in the superior court, defendant moved for continuance on account of absence of a material witness, the wife of defendant. The motion was denied. The question of granting or refusing a motion for the continuance of an action is peculiarly within the discretion of the court. Unless that discretion is abused, the decision of the court below is not subject to review on appeal. State v. Banks, 204 N.C. 233, 167 S.E. 851.
In the course of the argument of that motion, "the Solicitor for the State in open court agreed to admit, without objection, that the wife of the defendant, if present in court, would testify that the defendant at the time he was arrested by Sheriff Bruton was not under the influence of intoxicants without admitting the truthfulness thereof." The record fails to show that defendant accepted this offer, or that the admission was excluded as evidence on the trial.
On cross-examination of the sheriff, who was a witness for the State, defendant offered to show that on the night of the arrest the wife of defendant stated that the defendant was not under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stegmann, 38
... ... State v. Smoak, 213 N.C. 79, 195 S.E. 72 (1938); State v. Sentelle, 212 N.C. 386, 193 S.E. 405 (1937); State v. Nance, 195 N.C. 47, 141 S.E. 468 (1928); Edwards v. Price, 162 N.C. 243, 78 S.E. 145 (1913); State v ... ...
-
State v. Grant, CR--1180
...Grant and directed the jury to disregard the answer of the witness. State v. McKissick, 271 N.C. 500, 157 S.E.2d 112; State v. Sentelle, 212 N.C. 386, 193 S.E. 405. Upon another occasion a character witness for defendant Reddy was not permitted to elaborate at length upon his opportunities ......
- Cayton v. Clark
- Cayton v. Clark