State v. Brock, 75
| Citation | 234 N.C. 390,67 S.E.2d 282 |
| Decision Date | 31 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 75,75 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE, v. BROCK. |
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., Ralph Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles G. Powell, Jr., Member of Staff, Raleigh, for the State.
Robert S. Cahoon, Atlanta, Ga., for defendant, appellant.
This court is of the opinion unanimously that defendant's plea of former jeopardy was properly denied. State v. Dove, 222 N.C. 162, 22 S.E.2d 231; State v. Guice, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E. 533. But the members of the court are evenly divided in opinion (Justice VALENTINE not sitting) whether error in the admission of testimony as to declarations and conduct of Jim Cook in the absence of the defendant was prejudicial requiring a new trial. Hence the judgment of the Superior Court must stand affirmed, without becoming a precedent.
Judgment affirmed.
VALENTINE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brock v. State of North Carolina
...imprisonment. From this judgment, he appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which affirmed his conviction. State v. Brock, 234 N.C. 390, 67 S.E.2d 282. He then sought certiorari here, which we granted. 343 U.S. 914, 72 S.Ct. 649. North Carolina has said there is no double jeopardy......
-
Ward v. Cruse, 378
... ... 421, 86 S.E. 348; Jones v. Dixie Fire Insurance Co., 210 N.C. 559, 187 S.E. 769; State v. Caper, 215 N.C. 670, 2 S.E.2d 864 ... The decisive question is this: Did the ... ...
-
State v. Brock, 76
...Weaver v. Morgan, 232 N.C. 642, 61 S.E.2d 916, 919. The fact that a mistrial was ordered and the case continued at October Term 1949, State v. Brock, N.C., 67 S.E.2d 282, did not relieve the defendant or his surety from his obligation to appear at a later term while the case was still pendi......
-
State v. Allen, 505
...short time for the consideration of other court matters, the jury had not been impaneled. Hence jeopardy had not attached. State v. Brock, 234 N.C. 390, 67 S.E.2d 282. The evidence was sufficient to require the submission of the case to the jury and to sustain the No error. ...