State v. Aaron
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
There is no basis for defendant’s contention that the trial court committed prejudicial error in not conducting a voir dire examination to determine the validity of the search of his automobile. The record clearly establishes that defendant freely and intelligently and without coercion consented to the search. See State v. Dooley, 20 N.C. App. 85, 200 S.E. 2d 818 (1973). A search warrant is not necessary to validate a search of an automobile where the owner and operator consents to the search. State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 180 S.E. 2d 755 (1971) ; State v. Lindquist, 14 N.C.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. VestalSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. McCloudSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- State v. BrooksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. LindquistCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. DooleyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- State v. FarberSupreme Court of Iowa · 1982
- Cory v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1979
- State v. FarberSupreme Court of Iowa · 1982
- State v. GardnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986