Legal Opinion

State v. . Whitfield

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 20, 1934PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Stacy, O. J.

Did the refusal of the trial court to grant the prisoner’s motion for a continuance impinge upon his constitutional right of confrontation? All the assignments of error, properly made, revolve around this one question.

The rule undoubtedly is, that the right of confrontation carries with it, not only the right to face one’s “accusers and witnesses with other testimony” (sec. 11, Bill of Rights), but also the opportunity fairly to present one’s defense. S. v. Ross, 193 N. C., 25, 136 S. E., 193; S. v. Hartsfield, 188 N. C., 357, 124 S. E., 629. A right observed according to form,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. State v. . LeaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  3. State v. Sultan.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1906
  4. State v. . SaulsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  5. State v. . HartsfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  2. State v. BaldwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. State v. . GibsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1948
  4. State v. VickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  5. State v. . CreechSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949

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

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

Powered by the Exa API