# State v. Smith

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · February 21, 1984 · 66 N.C. App. 570

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585911

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Alton Gordon Smith
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** February 21, 1984
- **Citations:** 66 N.C. App. 570; 312 S.E.2d 222; 1984 N.C. App. LEXIS 2952
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Becton
- **Judges:** Vaughn, Hill, Becton
- **Cited by:** 16 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585911

## Opinion text

Judge Becton
concurring in the result.
Believing that defendant had a trial free of prejudicial error, I concur in the result reached by the majority. I write this concurring opinion only because I believe it was error to allow Detective Ray Strickland “to testify, over objection, that after talking to shop owners where defendant allegedly sold the stolen property, he determined that the shop owners’ descriptions of the seller fit the defendant,” ante p. 9. This testimony, in my view, is inadmissible hearsay. Further, because the out-of-court statements of the shop owners form the basis for Strickland’s conclusion and opinion — that “the shop owners’ descriptions of the seller fit the defendant” —the conclusion and opinion are inadmissible. Additionally, any examination of Strickland concerning the specifics of the descriptions given creates a confrontation problem. However, *580 given the evidence against the defendant, I do not believe that the admission of the challenged evidence in any way contributed to defendant’s conviction. The error was harmless.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9585911. Public record. Not legal advice.