State v. Brice

• Decision Date: 15 June 1938
• Docket Number: 730.
• Parties: STATE v. BRICE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

197 S.E. 690

214 N.C. 34

STATE
v.
BRICE.

No. 730.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

June 15, 1938

Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; Walter J. Bone, Judge.

Wiley Brice was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed and appeal dismissed.

Where it was shown that murder was committed prior to enactment of statute providing for death by administration of lethal gas, judgment that accused suffer penalty of death by electrocution was proper. Pub.Laws 1935, c. 294. [197 S.E. 691.]

Motion by State to dismiss appeal of defendant.

Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with the murder of one Shealey Lea, alias Shelly Lea, on the 17th day of April, A. D. 1926. There was verdict of murder in the first degree. All the evidence tends to show that the crime was committed on the day named in the bill of indictment, and prior to July 1, 1935, the date on which the statute providing for death by administration of lethal gas became effective. P.L.1935, Chap. 294. Judgment is that defendant suffer the penalty of death by electrocution. State v. Hester, 209 N.C. 99, 182 S.E. 738; State v. Dingle, 209 N.C. 293, 183 S.E. 376; State v. McNeill, 211 N.C. 286, 189 S.E. 872. Defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, and was permitted to appeal in forma pauperis. The court below ordered that the cost of appeal, including transcript of evidence, cost of mimeographing statement of case on appeal and defendant's brief be paid by Alamance County. The record and case on appeal were duly docketed in this Court, but defendant has filed no brief, which works an abandonment of the assignments of error. State v. Hooker, 207 N.C. 648, 178 S.E. 75; State v. Dingle, supra; State v. Robinson, 212 N.C. 536, 193 S.E. 701; State v. Hadley, 213 N.C. 427, 196 S.E. 361, except those appearing on the face of the record, which are cognizable ex mero motu. State v. Edney, 202 N.C. 706, 164 S.E. 23.

The Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Rules 27 and 28 of this Court as to filing...