State v. Daye
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
VAUGHN, Judge.
Defendant’s first assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for mistrial due to the prejudicial responses of a State’s witness and improper ques*436tioning by the solicitor. “As a general rule, a motion for a mistrial is addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and the ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal in the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion.” State v. Williams, 7 N.C. App. 51, 171 S.E. 2d 39. The record before us discloses no abuse of discretion. It suffices to say that, in almost every instance, the able trial judge…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. MooreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
3Cited by2 opinions
- State v. JarrellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. CameronCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972