State v. Dixon

Apr 10, 1963
292
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Per Curiam
Per Curiam.

There is no thaumaturgy which can transform into newly discovered evidence defendant’s ignorance ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‍at the time of his trial that the blood sample, about which he did not inquire, would not have been available if he had demanded it. The ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‍seven prerequisites to the granting of >a new trial for newly discovered evidence are listed seriatim by Stacy, C.J., in State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81. Defendant meets not ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‍one of these requirements. Furthermore, a motion for a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‍court which is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse. State v. Williams, 244 N.C. 459, 94 S.E. 2d 374. Judge Paul’s ruling denying defendant’s motion both as a ‍‌​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​​​​​​​​‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​​‌​​​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​​‌​‍matter of right and in his discretion met the requirements of judicial decorum.

Appeal dismissed.