Legal Opinion

State v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 29, 1978No. 7817SC279PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Judge.

I

The defendant’s first argument, that the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion that a new lawyer be appointed to defend him, is without merit. In State v. McNeil, 263 N.C. 260, 139 S.E. 2d 667 (1965), the Supreme Court stated that in the absence of any substantial reason for replacement of court-appointed counsel, an indigent defendant must accept counsel appointed by the court, unless he wishes to present his own defense. In the present case, the following exchange took place in the presence of the jury:

“Mr. NEAVES: Your Honor, my client said that he would like to…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. State v. PerrySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
  2. State v. SweezySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. State v. McNeilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. State v. HoldenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  5. State v. BowdenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. PartinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API