State v. Walsh
| Decision Date | 19 September 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 7312SC264,7312SC264 |
| Citation | 19 N.C.App. 420,199 S.E.2d 38 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Patrick J. WALSH et al. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, by Asst. Atty. Gen. Walter E. Ricks, III, Raleigh, for the State.
Donald W. Grimes, Asst. Public Defender, Twelfth District Fayetteville, for defendants Patrick J., Walsh and Gary L. Peterson.
Carl A. Barrington, Jr., Fayetteville, for defendant Ruth Ann Quinn.
Defendants' first assignment of error is that the search warrant was fatally defective, and that evidence seized thereunder should be suppressed.
G.S. § 15--26 sets forth the required contents of a search warrant. G.S. § 15--26(a) states: 'The search warrant must describe with reasonable certainty the person, premises, or other place to be searched and the contraband, instrumentality, or evidence for which the search is to be made.'
Defendants place great emphasis upon the fact that the address of the house described in the warrant differs from the address of the house actually searched, and that the house searched has a different color trim from an otherwise identical house fifty feet away on Pamalee Drive. Defendants are requiring exactness in the description of the premises, whereas the statute only requires a description with Reasonable certainty.
68 Am.Jur.2d, Search and Seizure, § 74, p. 729.
This assignment of error is overruled.
Defendants' second assignment of error embraces numerous exceptions which allege bias and prejudice on the part of the trial judge. In substance they allege that the trial judge favored the State in his discretionary rulings and otherwise aided the State in the prosecution of the case.
'Remarks of the court during the trial will not entitle defendant to a new trial unless they tend to prejudice defendant, the remarks to be considered in the light of the circumstances under which they were made; defendant has the burden of showing prejudice, and a bare possibility that they were prejudicial is insufficient.' 2 Strong, N.C.Incex 2d, Criminal Law § 99, p. 635.
Defendants' exceptions have failed to show prejudice. This assignment of error is overruled.
Defendants assign as error the denial of defendants' motion to strike the testimony of Officer Nichols regarding a bottle which exploded two days after it was seized at Pamalee Drive. Defendants contend this testimony served to create an impression in the minds of the jury that the defendants were dealing with explosive materials, and that this evidence had no connection with a drug offense prosecution.
'Where there is abundant evidence to support the main contentions of the state, the admission of evidence, even though technically incompetent, will not be held prejudicial when defendant does not affirmatively make it appear that he was prejudiced thereby or that the admission of the evidence would have affected the result.' 3 Strong, N.C.Index 2d, Criminal Law § 169, p. 135.
The record on appeal further discloses that defendants did not object to the question; that the witness' answer was responsive, and that thereafter defendants moved to strike the answer. Objection must be interposed to an improper question without waiting for an answer, and, if objection is not made in that time, motion to strike the responsive answer is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, except where evidence is rendered incompetent by statute. State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E.2d 839. This assignment of error is overruled.
The defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Carolina v. Hunter, COA10–483.
...156, 159, 566 S.E.2d 713, 715 (2002) (quoting N.C. Gen.Stat. §§ 15A–246(4) and 15A–246(5) (2001)); see also State v. Walsh, 19 N.C.App. 420, 423, 199 S.E.2d 38, 40–41 (1973) (reasoning that the defendants were “requiring exactness in the description of the premises, whereas the statute only......
-
State v. Oliver, 8615SC673
...213 S.E.2d 262, modified, 428 U.S. 902, 96 S.Ct. 3203, 49 L.Ed.2d 1205 (1976), and among members of a military community, State v. Walsh, 19 N.C.App. 420, 199 S.E.2d 38, cert. denied, 284 N.C. 258, 200 S.E.2d 658 (1973), to be admissible. Our review of the transcript shows that the victim's......
-
State v. Cummings
...States v. Turner, supra, 770 F.2d at 1511; United States v. McCain, supra, 677 F.2d at 661. To similar effect see State v. Walsh, 19 N.C.App. 420, 199 S.E.2d 38, 40 (1973), and State v. Ockman, 466 So.2d 658, 659 (La.App.1985). In determining the significance of an inaccuracy in a warrant's......
-
State v. Dunn, No. COA08-1331 (N.C. App. 7/7/2009)
...may differ from the address of the residence actually searched without such reasonable certainty being lost. State v. Walsh, 19 N.C. App. 420, 423, 199 S.E.2d 38, 41 (1973). If there is other evidentiary support for a legally correct conclusion regarding the validity of a search warrant, th......