State v. Stepney
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
HUSKINS, Justice.
Prior to introduction of evidence defendant moved for a continuance due to absence of witnesses “located in the area of Chicago,” allegedly necessary to prove his defense of alibi. Denial of the motion constitutes defendant’s first assignment of error.
A motion for continuance is ordinarily addressed to the discretion of the trial judge and his ruling thereon is not subject to review absent abuse of discretion. State v. Stinson, 267 N.C. 661, 148 S.E. 2d 593 (1966). Continuances should not be granted unless the reasons therefor are fully established. Hence, a motion for…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by121 opinions
- State v. BarfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- State v. CovingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. MonkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. CameronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- State v. TuggleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
116 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.