Legal Opinion

State v. Gordon

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 4, 1986No. 8526SC763PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WHICHARD, Judge.

Defendant contends the court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, forcing him to represent himself, and denying his motion to suppress identification testimony. The single issue presented is whether the court (Judge Hairston) erred in forcing or allowing defendant to proceed without counsel at the hearing on his motion to suppress identification testimony. We find State v. McCrowre, 312 N.C. 478, 322 S.E. 2d 775 (1984), and its progeny, controlling. Pursuant thereto, we hold that absent a clear indication by defendant that he desired to proceed pro se, and absent the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. HutchinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. McCrowreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
  3. State v. WhiteCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  4. State v. GrahamCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  5. State v. MichaelCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. WatlingtonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  2. State v. FrederickCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  3. State v. LindseyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2020
  4. State v. LindseyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2020

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

Powered by the Exa API