Page 759 |
Previous | 759 of 832 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.] SPRING SESSION 1973 735 State v. Powell In State v. Brown, 282 N.C. 117, 123, 191 S.E. 2d 659 (1972), opinion by Justice Moore, we find: "The word 'speedy' cannot be defined in specific terms of days, months or years, so the question whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial must be answered in light of the facts in the particular case. The length of the delay, the cause of the delay, prejudice to the defendant, and waiver by defendant are interrelated factors to be considered in determining whether a trial has been unduly delayed. (Citations.) " [I] In the instant case, defendant failed to show that the delay in his trial was due to the neglect or willfulness of the prosecution. To the contrary, the record discloses that sub-sequent to 19 October 1969 Tpr. Smith was transferred from Randolph County and thereafter separated from the State Highway Patrol and became a U. S. Deputy Marshal; that he was serving as a deputy marshal, stationed in Raleigh, at the time of the trid. The record further indicates that defendant was free on a nominal blond most, if not all, of the time between the date of the alleged offense and the date of his trid. There is no showing that defendant was prejudiced by the delay in any way. The assignment of error is overruled. [2] Defendant assigns as error the admission of testimony showing the result of the breathalyzer test administered to him in the hospital. In connection with this assignment, defendant argues that the court should not have admitted any evidence tending to show that he was operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicants. We reject this argument. Evidence of defendant's operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants was relevant to show that Tpr. Smith had probable cause to arrest defendant and that defendant was in the lawful custody of Tpr. Smith at the time of the alleged assault. As to the admission of testimony showing the result of the breathalyzer test, G.S. 20-139.1(a) provides in pertinent part as follows: "In any criminal action arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the amount of alcohol in the person's blood at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the person's breath or blood shall be admissible in evidence. . . . 11
Object Description
Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.018, Spring Session 1973] |
Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
Date | 1973 |
Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
Place | North Carolina, United States |
Description | Volume 18, Spring Session 1973. Cited as 18 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
Type | Text |
Language | English |
Format | Reports; Legal documents |
Digital Characteristics-A | 36.8 MB; 832 p. |
Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
Digital Format | application/pdf |
Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_018.pdf |
Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
Title | Page 759 |
Full Text | N.C.App.] SPRING SESSION 1973 735 State v. Powell In State v. Brown, 282 N.C. 117, 123, 191 S.E. 2d 659 (1972), opinion by Justice Moore, we find: "The word 'speedy' cannot be defined in specific terms of days, months or years, so the question whether a defendant has been denied a speedy trial must be answered in light of the facts in the particular case. The length of the delay, the cause of the delay, prejudice to the defendant, and waiver by defendant are interrelated factors to be considered in determining whether a trial has been unduly delayed. (Citations.) " [I] In the instant case, defendant failed to show that the delay in his trial was due to the neglect or willfulness of the prosecution. To the contrary, the record discloses that sub-sequent to 19 October 1969 Tpr. Smith was transferred from Randolph County and thereafter separated from the State Highway Patrol and became a U. S. Deputy Marshal; that he was serving as a deputy marshal, stationed in Raleigh, at the time of the trid. The record further indicates that defendant was free on a nominal blond most, if not all, of the time between the date of the alleged offense and the date of his trid. There is no showing that defendant was prejudiced by the delay in any way. The assignment of error is overruled. [2] Defendant assigns as error the admission of testimony showing the result of the breathalyzer test administered to him in the hospital. In connection with this assignment, defendant argues that the court should not have admitted any evidence tending to show that he was operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicants. We reject this argument. Evidence of defendant's operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicants was relevant to show that Tpr. Smith had probable cause to arrest defendant and that defendant was in the lawful custody of Tpr. Smith at the time of the alleged assault. As to the admission of testimony showing the result of the breathalyzer test, G.S. 20-139.1(a) provides in pertinent part as follows: "In any criminal action arising out of acts alleged to have been committed by any person while driving or operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the amount of alcohol in the person's blood at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the person's breath or blood shall be admissible in evidence. . . . 11 |