Legal Opinion
State v. Miller
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided December 17, 1975No. 79PublishedCited by 53 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
HUSKINS, Justice.
Prior to introduction of evidence defendant Clark moved for a continuance to enable his newly employed counsel to properly prepare his defense. Denial of the motion constitutes Clark’s first assignment of error.
A motion for continuance is ordinarily addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling thereon is not subject to review absent abuse of discretion. State v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 690, 174 S.E. 2d 526 (1970) ; State v. Stinson, 267 N.C. 661, 148 S.E. 2d 593 (1966). However, if the motion is based on a right guaranteed by the federal or state…
2Cases cited63 opinions
- Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme 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
- Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Lisenba v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- State v. AlstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. TolleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
- State v. MooseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.