Page 424 |
Previous | 424 of 843 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
396 COURT OF APPEALS
Highway Comm. v. Helderman
present when the jury was selected. The court then dictated
the following into the record :
"THE COURT: Let the record show that on Monday it ap-peared
to the presiding Judge that the only jury trial for
the week was the case of State Highway Commission v.
J. R. Heldernzan, and wife; that the Court inquired of
counsel at that time if there was any objection to the
selection of the jury to try this case, at which time counsel
for the State Highway Commission and counsel for the
defendant stated to the Court that there was no objection
to the selection of the jury at that time, and the Court desir-ing
to select a jury in order that the other jurors might go
home and the State would not be required to pay for any
further attendance for them during the Court.
In view of the foregoing the Court denies the motion of
the plaintiff, petitioner."
From the record, it is abundantly clear that the procedure
of which plaintiff complains was done with the consent of coun-sel
for plaintiff. We agree that it is certainly a better practice
for the trial counsel to participate in the selection of the jury.
However, here no prejudice has been shown. The record reveals
no valid reason for Mr. Richmond's failure to demur to the
procedure suggested by the court, nor does the record indicate
that the court was told that Mr. Richmond would not be trial
counsel. This assignment of error is overruled.
While it may be that any one of the additional errors as-signed
by plaintiff might not be sufficiently prejudicial to war-rant
a new trial, we are of the opinion that cumulatively they
are sufficiently prejudicial to entitle plaintiff to a new trial.
[2] We do not deem it necessary to go into each assignment
of error in detail. A few examples of the errors in evidence will
suffice. Defendant was allowed to testify, over objection, that
his property had constantly increased in value since he pur-chased
it. He had previously been allowed to testify, over ob-jection,
that he thought he knew and was acquainted with the
fair market value of real estate in the vicinity. He testified
he bought the property seven or eight years ago, was in the oil
business in Albemarle where he lived, owned no other property
in Henderson County, and there were no buildings on the prop-erty,
and that he had never lived in Henderson County. There
is nothing in the testimony of plaintiff which would indicate
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.020, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 20, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974. Cited as 20 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 | 34.5 MB; 842 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_020.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 424 |
| Full Text | 396 COURT OF APPEALS Highway Comm. v. Helderman present when the jury was selected. The court then dictated the following into the record : "THE COURT: Let the record show that on Monday it ap-peared to the presiding Judge that the only jury trial for the week was the case of State Highway Commission v. J. R. Heldernzan, and wife; that the Court inquired of counsel at that time if there was any objection to the selection of the jury to try this case, at which time counsel for the State Highway Commission and counsel for the defendant stated to the Court that there was no objection to the selection of the jury at that time, and the Court desir-ing to select a jury in order that the other jurors might go home and the State would not be required to pay for any further attendance for them during the Court. In view of the foregoing the Court denies the motion of the plaintiff, petitioner." From the record, it is abundantly clear that the procedure of which plaintiff complains was done with the consent of coun-sel for plaintiff. We agree that it is certainly a better practice for the trial counsel to participate in the selection of the jury. However, here no prejudice has been shown. The record reveals no valid reason for Mr. Richmond's failure to demur to the procedure suggested by the court, nor does the record indicate that the court was told that Mr. Richmond would not be trial counsel. This assignment of error is overruled. While it may be that any one of the additional errors as-signed by plaintiff might not be sufficiently prejudicial to war-rant a new trial, we are of the opinion that cumulatively they are sufficiently prejudicial to entitle plaintiff to a new trial. [2] We do not deem it necessary to go into each assignment of error in detail. A few examples of the errors in evidence will suffice. Defendant was allowed to testify, over objection, that his property had constantly increased in value since he pur-chased it. He had previously been allowed to testify, over ob-jection, that he thought he knew and was acquainted with the fair market value of real estate in the vicinity. He testified he bought the property seven or eight years ago, was in the oil business in Albemarle where he lived, owned no other property in Henderson County, and there were no buildings on the prop-erty, and that he had never lived in Henderson County. There is nothing in the testimony of plaintiff which would indicate |
