State v. Pollock
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HEDRICK, Judge.
The first assignment of error brought forth in defendant’s brief is “[t]he Court’s denial of defendant’s Motion to Continue.” Defendant argues that he was not informed until five days before trial that the State intended to use against defendant the testimony of an alleged co-participant in a scheme to illegally divert quantities of meat belonging to a hospital, and that the denial of his motion for continuance denied him his constitutional rights to the “production of witnesses, effective assistance of counsel, his right to cross examine State’s witnesses and his right to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State v. TolleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. AbernathySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. RigsbeeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
- State v. GuffeyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1979
- State v. McDowellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
- State v. MaynardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. PickardCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1992
- State v. StittCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
- IN THE MATTER OF CBCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004