Legal Opinion

State v. . Garner

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 19, 1932PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The only exception, which needs to be specifically noticed, is the one addressed to the refusal of the court to grant the defendants’ motion for a continuance. While, ordinarily, this is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court, nevertheless, it should be remembered that defendants have a constitutional right of confrontation, which cannot lawfully be taken from them, and this includes the right of a fair opportunity to face “the accusers and witnesses with other testimony.” Section 11, Bill of Eights; S. v. Lea, ante, 13; S. v. Ross, 193 N. C., 25, 136 S. E., 193. But the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. . SaulsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. State v. . RossSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  3. State v. . RhodesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1932
  4. State v. . RileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
  5. Poindexter v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1931

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

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. State v. . FarrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  2. State v. HackneySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. State v. FarrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  4. State v. . WhitfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  5. State v. . GodwinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939

10 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