Legal Opinion

State v. Taylor

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 13, 1948PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The petitioner has been well advised, both as to the substantive and procedural law applicable to his situation, as will appear from an examination of the authorities cited in the report above set out.

Where the defendant in a criminal prosecution, less than capital, is unable to employ counsel, the appointment of counsel for him is discre tionary with the trial court. S. v. Hedgebeth, 228 N. C., 259, 45 S. E. (2d), 563. It is otherwise, however, in capital cases. G. S., 15-4; S. v. Farrell, 223 N. C., 321, 26 S. E. (2d), 322. “In a capital case, where the defendant is unable to employ…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Powell v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Wade v. MayoSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  3. State v. . FarrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  4. State v. FarrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  5. State v. . HedgebethSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. LaneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  2. State v. DanielsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  3. State v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  4. State v. MerrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  5. In Re RenfrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1957

4 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