Page 400 |
Previous | 400 of 831 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
372 COURT OF APPEALS [21
State v. Young
way he realized that he had left his glasses at Ce Ce's house, and
he turned around and drove back to pick up the glasses. When
he came back to Ce Ce's house he found her there dead.
The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder.
From the court's judgment imposing a prison term of 30 years,
defendant appealed.
Attorney General Morgan, by Associate At to~neyJ o h ~R.
Morgan, for the State.
Smith & Geimer, P.A., by Kenneth Glusman, for defendant
appellant.
BALEY, Judge.
[I] Defendant contends that the police acted illegally in seiz-ing
his car on 17 May 1973, and that the brick scrapings and
other items of evidence found in the car should not have been
admitted. This contention cannot be upheld. When police officers
discover evidence of a crime in plain view, without the necessity
of a search, they may seize the evidence without obtaining a
search warrant. Coolidge v. New Hamphiye, 403 U.S. 443
(1971) ; State v. Duboise, 279 N.C. 73, 181 S.E. 2d 393; State v.
Bell, 270 N.C. 25, 153 S.E. 2d 741; State v. Frg, 13 N.C. App.
39, 185 S.E. 2d 256, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 280 N.C.
495, 186 S.E. 2d 514. In this case defendant's car was in plain
view when the police officers went to Brookwood Trailer Park to
find defendant. A murder had been committed; defendant was
the last person seen with the victim ; defendant's trailer had just
burned down under the most suspicious circumstances; and de-fendant's
car had blood on the door handles and bumper. Clearly,
the officers were justified in concluding that the car constituted
evidence of a crime and should be seized.
In Coolidge v. New Hampslzire, supra, the Supreme Court
held that the "plain view" rule does not apply unless the police
have a right to be at the place where the evidence is discovered.
Here the officers went to defendant's premises looking for him
for interrogation concerning a brutal murder when he was a
logical suspect, and they had a right to be on the premises
and seize any evidence in plain view. The bloodstained car was
easily visible from the street, front entrance, or other portions
of defendant's premises which were open to the public. Cf.
Smith v. VonCannon, 283 N.C. 656, 197 S.E. 2d 524. The seizure
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.021, March 6, 1974 - June 5, 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 21, March 6, 1974 - June 5, 1974. Cited as 21 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 | 31.9 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_021.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 400 |
| Full Text | 372 COURT OF APPEALS [21 State v. Young way he realized that he had left his glasses at Ce Ce's house, and he turned around and drove back to pick up the glasses. When he came back to Ce Ce's house he found her there dead. The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder. From the court's judgment imposing a prison term of 30 years, defendant appealed. Attorney General Morgan, by Associate At to~neyJ o h ~R. Morgan, for the State. Smith & Geimer, P.A., by Kenneth Glusman, for defendant appellant. BALEY, Judge. [I] Defendant contends that the police acted illegally in seiz-ing his car on 17 May 1973, and that the brick scrapings and other items of evidence found in the car should not have been admitted. This contention cannot be upheld. When police officers discover evidence of a crime in plain view, without the necessity of a search, they may seize the evidence without obtaining a search warrant. Coolidge v. New Hamphiye, 403 U.S. 443 (1971) ; State v. Duboise, 279 N.C. 73, 181 S.E. 2d 393; State v. Bell, 270 N.C. 25, 153 S.E. 2d 741; State v. Frg, 13 N.C. App. 39, 185 S.E. 2d 256, cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 280 N.C. 495, 186 S.E. 2d 514. In this case defendant's car was in plain view when the police officers went to Brookwood Trailer Park to find defendant. A murder had been committed; defendant was the last person seen with the victim ; defendant's trailer had just burned down under the most suspicious circumstances; and de-fendant's car had blood on the door handles and bumper. Clearly, the officers were justified in concluding that the car constituted evidence of a crime and should be seized. In Coolidge v. New Hampslzire, supra, the Supreme Court held that the "plain view" rule does not apply unless the police have a right to be at the place where the evidence is discovered. Here the officers went to defendant's premises looking for him for interrogation concerning a brutal murder when he was a logical suspect, and they had a right to be on the premises and seize any evidence in plain view. The bloodstained car was easily visible from the street, front entrance, or other portions of defendant's premises which were open to the public. Cf. Smith v. VonCannon, 283 N.C. 656, 197 S.E. 2d 524. The seizure |
