defendant assigns error in North Carolina

2016Generally, "[w]hen a defendant assigns error to the sentence imposed by the trial court our standard of review is whether [the] sentence is supported by evidence introduced at the trial and sentencing hearing." State v. Chivers , 180 N.C.App. 275 , 278, 636 S.E.2d 590 , 593 (2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted), disc. review denied , 361 N.C. 222 , 642 S.E.2d 709 (2007) ; see N.C.

2015A. Standard of Review "When a defendant assigns error to the sentence imposed by the trial court our standard of review is whether the sentence is supported by evidence introduced at the trial and sentencing hearing." State v. Chivers, 180 N.C.App. 275 , 278, 636 S.E.2d 590 , 593 (2006) (citation and brackets omitted), disc. rev. denied, 361 N.C. 222 , 642 S.E.2d 709 (2007).

2016Generally, "[w]hen a defendant assigns error to the sentence imposed by the trial court our standard of review is whether [the] sentence is supported by evidence introduced at the trial and sentencing hearing." State v. Chivers , 180 N.C.App. 275 , 278, 636 S.E.2d 590 , 593 (2006) (internal quotation and citation omitted), disc. review denied , 361 N.C. 222 , 642 S.E.2d 709 (2007) ; see N.C.

2015A. Standard of Review "When a defendant assigns error to the sentence imposed by the trial court our standard of review is whether the sentence is supported by evidence introduced at the trial and sentencing hearing." State v. Chivers, 180 N.C.App. 275 , 278, 636 S.E.2d 590 , 593 (2006) (citation and brackets omitted), disc. rev. denied, 361 N.C. 222 , 642 S.E.2d 709 (2007).

1954This Court said in S. v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671 , 158 S.E. 252 : “Tbe court is expressly authorized by statute in this State to order the consolidation for trial of two or more indictments in which the defendant or defendants are charged with crimes of the same class, which are so connected in time or place as that evidence at the trial of one of the indictments will be competent and admissible at the trial of the others.” G.S.N.C. 15-152.

1954This Court said in S. v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671 , 158 S.E. 252 : “Tbe court is expressly authorized by statute in this State to order the consolidation for trial of two or more indictments in which the defendant or defendants are charged with crimes of the same class, which are so connected in time or place as that evidence at the trial of one of the indictments will be competent and admissible at the trial of the others.” G.S.N.C. 15-152.

2008When the defendant assigns as error the exclusion of testimony, but has not made an offer of proof for the record of what the resulting testimony would be, this Court “cannot assess the significance of the evidence sought to be elicited[.]” Id., 482 S.E.2d at 758-59 .

2008When the defendant assigns as error the exclusion of testimony, but has not made an offer of proof for the record of what the resulting testimony would be, this Court “cannot assess the significance of the evidence sought to be elicited[.]” Id., 482 S.E.2d at 758-59 .

1986He contends that his statement was taken in violation of the requirements of Edwards *45 v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 68 L.Ed. 2d 378 , reh’g denied, 452 U.S. 973 , 69 L.Ed. 2d 984 (1981).

1986He contends that his statement was taken in violation of the requirements of Edwards *45 v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 68 L.Ed. 2d 378 , reh’g denied, 452 U.S. 973 , 69 L.Ed. 2d 984 (1981).

1986We believe we are bound by Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 303 N.C. 462 , 279 S.E. 2d 559 (1981) to overrule this assignment of error.

1986We believe we are bound by Norwood v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 303 N.C. 462 , 279 S.E. 2d 559 (1981) to overrule this assignment of error.

1986He contends that his statement was taken in violation of the requirements of Edwards *45 v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 68 L.Ed. 2d 378 , reh’g denied, 452 U.S. 973 , 69 L.Ed. 2d 984 (1981).

1986He contends that his statement was taken in violation of the requirements of Edwards *45 v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 68 L.Ed. 2d 378 , reh’g denied, 452 U.S. 973 , 69 L.Ed. 2d 984 (1981).

1986Both parties cite State v. Eason, 67 N.C.

1985We hold, pursuant to State v. Brown, 308 N.C. 181 , 301 S.E.2d 89 (1983), that we are bound to sustain this assignment of error.

1985We hold, pursuant to State v. Brown, 308 N.C. 181 , 301 S.E.2d 89 (1983), that we are bound to sustain this assignment of error.

1980After the case sub judice *834 was tried, our Supreme Court rendered a decision in State v. Ray, 299 N.C. 151 , 261 S.E. 2d 789 (1980).

1980After the case sub judice *834 was tried, our Supreme Court rendered a decision in State v. Ray, 299 N.C. 151 , 261 S.E. 2d 789 (1980).

1980The defendant assigns as error the instruction to the jury that “the fact of entry alone in the nighttime accompanied by flight when discovered is some evidence of guilt and in the absence of any other proof or evidence of other intent, and with no explanatory facts or circumstances, may warrant a reasonable inference of guilty intent.” Defendant admits that this language is found in numerous cases, including State v. Accor, 277 N.C. 65 , 175 S.E. 2d 583 (1970), but argues that the language related to the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss rather th

1980The defendant assigns as error the instruction to the jury that “the fact of entry alone in the nighttime accompanied by flight when discovered is some evidence of guilt and in the absence of any other proof or evidence of other intent, and with no explanatory facts or circumstances, may warrant a reasonable inference of guilty intent.” Defendant admits that this language is found in numerous cases, including State v. Accor, 277 N.C. 65 , 175 S.E. 2d 583 (1970), but argues that the language related to the issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to withstand a motion to dismiss rather th

1979Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment shall be entered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c); Kidd v. Early, 289 N.C. 343 , 222 S.E. 2d 392 (1976).

1979Under Rule 56(c), summary judgment shall be entered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(c); Kidd v. Early, 289 N.C. 343 , 222 S.E. 2d 392 (1976).

1978He acknowledges that our courts have held that there is no constitutional right to have an expert witness to aid in an indigent’s defense, State v. Tatum, 291 N.C. 73 , 229 S.E. 2d 562 (1976), and that the decision to allow or deny an indigent defendant’s motion for fees for an expert witness is within the discretion of the trial judge.

1978He acknowledges that our courts have held that there is no constitutional right to have an expert witness to aid in an indigent’s defense, State v. Tatum, 291 N.C. 73 , 229 S.E. 2d 562 (1976), and that the decision to allow or deny an indigent defendant’s motion for fees for an expert witness is within the discretion of the trial judge.

1976State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158 , 203 S.E. 2d 815 (1974); State v. Hickman, 21 N.C.

1976State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158 , 203 S.E. 2d 815 (1974); State v. Hickman, 21 N.C.

1975The following, from General Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers U. v. Blue Cab Co., 353 F. 2d 687, 689 (7th Cir. 1965), may be instructive: “The making of additional specific findings and separate conclusions on a motion for summary judgment is ill advised since it would carry an unwarranted implication that a fact question was presented.” *730 With respect to defendant’s counterclaim for reimbursement of sums paid on notes secured by deeds of trust encumbering the property in question, the defendant assigns as error the court’s conclusion that : “As a matter of law, neither the plaintiff nor the

1975The following, from General Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers U. v. Blue Cab Co., 353 F. 2d 687, 689 (7th Cir. 1965), may be instructive: “The making of additional specific findings and separate conclusions on a motion for summary judgment is ill advised since it would carry an unwarranted implication that a fact question was presented.” *730 With respect to defendant’s counterclaim for reimbursement of sums paid on notes secured by deeds of trust encumbering the property in question, the defendant assigns as error the court’s conclusion that : “As a matter of law, neither the plaintiff nor the

1975The following, from General Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers U. v. Blue Cab Co., 353 F. 2d 687, 689 (7th Cir. 1965), may be instructive: “The making of additional specific findings and separate conclusions on a motion for summary judgment is ill advised since it would carry an unwarranted implication that a fact question was presented.” *730 With respect to defendant’s counterclaim for reimbursement of sums paid on notes secured by deeds of trust encumbering the property in question, the defendant assigns as error the court’s conclusion that : “As a matter of law, neither the plaintiff nor the

1975The following, from General Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers U. v. Blue Cab Co., 353 F. 2d 687, 689 (7th Cir. 1965), may be instructive: “The making of additional specific findings and separate conclusions on a motion for summary judgment is ill advised since it would carry an unwarranted implication that a fact question was presented.” *730 With respect to defendant’s counterclaim for reimbursement of sums paid on notes secured by deeds of trust encumbering the property in question, the defendant assigns as error the court’s conclusion that : “As a matter of law, neither the plaintiff nor the

1975He relies on State v. Foster, 268 N.C. 480 , 151 S.E. 2d 62 (1966), where the owner testified that he was unable to identify the six new Phillips 66 tires found in the possession of defendant but that they were the same brand and size as the tires stolen from his place of business.

1975He relies on State v. Foster, 268 N.C. 480 , 151 S.E. 2d 62 (1966), where the owner testified that he was unable to identify the six new Phillips 66 tires found in the possession of defendant but that they were the same brand and size as the tires stolen from his place of business.