State v. Willis, 692SC143
| Decision Date | 28 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 692SC143,692SC143 |
| Citation | 167 S.E.2d 518,4 N.C.App. 641 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Christopher Columbus WILLIS. |
Robert Morgan, Atty. Gen., by William W. Melvin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and T. Buie Costen, Staff Atty., Raleigh, for the State.
John A. Wilkinson, Washington, for defendant.
It appears from the record that the judgment appealed from was entered 10 October 1968; thus absent an order extending the time for docketing, the record on appeal should have been docketed in this Court on or before 8 January 1969. Rule 5, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. Counsel for the defendant did not docket the record on appeal in this Court until 20 January 1969, and for failure to docket on time this appeal is subject to dismissal. Rule 48, Rules of Practice, Supra.
In addition to failure to docket on time, counsel for defendant submitted the complete transcript of the evidence under Rule 19(d)(2), but contrary to the provisions of that rule, he did not attach an appendix to his brief setting forth in succinct language with respect to those witnesses whose testimony he deemed to be pertinent to the questions raised on appeal, what he says the testimony of such witness tends to establish. The appeal is thus further subject to dismissal. Rule 19(d)(2), Rules of Practice, Supra; Rule 48, Rules of Practice, Supra.
In addition to the foregoing counsel for the defendant, in the preparation of his brief did not comply with that portion of Rule 28 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina which requires 'Such brief shall contain, properly numbered, the several grounds of exception and assignment of error with reference to the pages of the record * * *.'
Despite the failure of defendant through his counsel to comply with the rules of this Court, we have considered the record here as a petition for writ of certiorari, allowed it, and considered the case on its merits. We are of the opinion that the failure of the trial court to rule on defendant's motion to determine his mental competency to stand trial before requiring him to plead to the indictment places this case within the doctrine of State v. Propst, Supra. We hold the court's failure to rule on the motion at that time to be prejudicial error requiring that the verdict and judgment be vacated and this cause remanded for further proceedings.
Defendant contends it was error to permit the State's witness Sheriff Cahoon to identify certain stains or discolorations as blood stains. We hold that it was not error to permit the witness Cahoon, the Sheriff of Hyde County, to identify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ellis, No. COA03-1204 (NC 8/3/2004)
...the weight to be given the testimony." State v. Stimpson, 15 N.C. App. 606, 607, 190 S.E.2d 378, 379 (1972) (citing State v. Willis, 4 N.C. App. 641, 167 S.E.2d 518 (1969)). Thus, it is acceptable for a lay person who observes a dark red substance to testify that the substance appears to be......
-
State v. Wilbur
...Vol. 3, Sec. 656, Page 1588; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 876 p. 452; Wimis v. State (1960) 216 Ga. 350, 116 S.E.2d 547; State v. Willis (1969) 4 N.C.App. 641, 167 S.E.2d 518. '6. That the court erred in admitting State's Exhibit No. This exhibit was a 'light blue shirt with blood stains on it'......
- State v. Stilley, 6921SC119
-
State v. Stimpson, 7218SC561
...testify that something appeared to be blood. This contention is without merit and has been answered by this court in State v. Willis, 4 N.C.App. 641, 167 S.E.2d 518 (1969), cert. den. 275 N.C. 501 (1969), where it is stated that nonexperts can testify as to the fact of bloodstains and then ......