State v. Armstrong

HILL, Judge.

Defendant first assigns as error the trial court’s refusal of its motion to suppress the introduction into evidence of the televi*42sion set seized in the search of defendant’s home. We hold the television was properly seized and introduced into evidence.

The search was pursuant to a validly issued warrant. G.S. 15A-253 provides that the scope of a search pursuant to a warrant “. . . may be only such as is authorized by the warrant . . . .” Defendant correctly points out that the warrant was for the purpose of obtaining specific property that would connect defendant with the attempted…