Legal Opinion

State v. Parker

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 20, 1972No. 7211SC522Published

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendant first contends that the denial of his motion for continuance was error. It is well settled that the granting or *167denial of a motion for continuance rests in the discretion of the presiding judge and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless the defendant shows abuse of discretion or shows that he did not get a fair trial. State v. Blackmon, 280 N.C. 42, 185 S.E. 2d 123; State v. Fidler, 13 N.C. App. 626, 186 S.E. 2d 656. The presumption is in favor of the regularity of the trial below and the burden rests upon the defendant to show error which was prejudicial…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. BlackmonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. State v. PartlowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  3. State v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
  4. State v. FidlerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API