Legal Opinion

State v. Ingram

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 2, 1974No. 7421SC570PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MARTIN, Judge.

Defendant has brought five assignments of error to this Court for consideration. First, he contends that it was reversible error for the trial court to allow Agent Gooch’s testimony that the contents of the package he received from Hairston on the night in question “appeared to be heroin”. There is no evidence in this record that qualifies Gooch to give such an opinion. However, this error is harmless since an expert witness testified later in the trial that the substance was heroin, and this testimony was not disputed.

Secondly, defendant argues that the court erred in not…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Roviaro v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. State v. BlackwellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. State v. PayneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. State v. McMullinCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974
  5. State v. McGheeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Richard L. Short v. Samuel P. Garrison Attorney General of North Carolina, Rufus EdmistenCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1982
  2. State v. HutchingsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  3. State v. RainesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1976
  4. State v. ProctorCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  5. State v. DortchCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983

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

Powered by the Exa API