State v. Gleason, 27 N.C. App. 587 (1975)

Nov. 19, 1975 · North Carolina Court of Appeals · No. 7518SC647

27 N.C. App. 587

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACK CONRAD GLEASON

No. 7518SC647

(Filed 19 November 1975)

Criminal Law § 131 — new trial for newly discovered evidence — discretion of court

A motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.

Appeal by defendant from Kivett, Judge. Judgment entered 1 May 1975 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 November 1975.

. Defendant was convicted at the 8 July 1974 Criminal Session of Guilford Superior Court of possession and sale of the controlled substance Methylenedioxy amphetamines (MDA). From judgment imposing prison sentences, he appealed to the Court of Appeals. In an opinion filed 5 March 1975 and reported in 24 N.C. App. 732, 212 S.E. 2d 213, this court found no error in the trial, or judgment.

Thereupon, defendant filed a motion in the trial court asking for.-a new trial on-the ground of newly discovered evidence. Following a hearing, the court entered an order denying the motion from which order defendant appeals.

Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Wilton E. Ragland, Jr., for the State.

Smith, Carrington, Patterson, Follín & Curtis, by J. David James, for defendant appellant.

BRITT, Judge.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. State v. Parker, 235 N.C. 302, 69 S.E. 2d 542 (1952), cert. denied, 344 U.S. 825, 97 L.Ed. 642, 73 S.Ct. 25 (1952) ; State v. Morrow, 264 N.C. 77, 140 S.E. 2d 767 (1965) ; State v. Lee, 22 N.C. App. 4, 205 S.E. 2d 360 (1974).

We have carefully. reviewed the record in this case and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion.

Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur.