State v. Brown
Decision Date | 10 December 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 577,577 |
Citation | 249 N.C. 271,106 S.E.2d 232 |
Parties | STATE, v. Leslie BROWN, Jr. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Clark, Clark & Grady, Elizabethtown, for defendant-appellant.
This appeal presents in the main two questions:
1. Is the evidence offered upon the trial in Superior Court, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, giving to the State the benefit of every reasonable intendment thereon, and every reasonable inference therefrom, as is done in testing its probative value on motion to nonsuit, sufficient to take the case to the jury on the first degree murder charge in compliance with the statute G.S. § 14-17?
In this connection it is appropriate to recur to applicable principles of law.
In State v. Hawkins, 214 N.C. 326, 199 S.E. 284, 289, the principles and authorities in support thereof are set forth as follows:
* * * '. . * * *.'
Subsequent decisions of this Court uniformly follow these principles.
And in the light of these principles applied to the evidence in case in hand, this Court is unable to say that in no view is there no evidence in support of the charge of murder in the first degree. Hence the case was properly submitted to the jury.
2. But as to the second question, do the exceptions taken in the course of the trial in Superior Court, and assigned as error, disclose error prejudicial to defendant, this Court holds that the answer is 'Yes', specifically in respect to ruling to which exception No. 3 relates.
This arose in this manner: After testifying as to threats made to him on morning of May 8, 1957, by Joe Mitchell Smith, defendant recalled the witness Neimiah Mitchell, who had testified for the State to the effect that Joe Mitchell Smith appeared to be 'a little mad or angry' that morning when he, Smith, took him, Mitchell, his wife and daughter to the farm of 'Mr. Joe Lennon' to pull tobacco plants, and that he talked with Smith that morning. And upon such recall Neimiah Mitchell testified: And by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Vestal
...the defendant objected, was sufficiently corroborative of the testimony of Mrs. Stanley to justify its admission. See State v. Brown, 249 N.C. 271, 106 S.E.2d 232. There is no merit in any of these assignments of Exceptions to the Charge to the Jury Since there must be a new trial for the e......
-
People v. Morrin
...25 Cal.2d 880, 898, 156 P.2d 7, 17.45 Austin v. United States, fn. 14, Supra; People v. Anderson, fn. 38, Supra; State v. Brown (1958), 249 N.C. 271, 106 S.E.2d 232; State v. Mitchell (Mo., 1966), 408 S.W.2d 39.46 Austin v. United States, fn. 14, Supra, 382 F.2d p. 135; People v. Guadagnino......
-
State v. Hankerson
...the presumptions of unlawfulness and malice but refused to recognize any presumption of premeditation or deliberation. State v. Brown, 249 N.C. 271, 106 S.E.2d 232 (1958); State v. Absher, 226 N.C. 656, 40 S.E.2d 26 (1946); State v. Keaton, 206 N.C. 682, 175 S.E. 296 (1934); State v. Rhyne,......
-
State v. McLawhorn, 337
...first testified that they had spoken with the witness Bennett. This assignment of error is overruled upon the authority of State v. Brown, 249 N.C. 271, 106 S.E.2d 232, wherein Winborne, C.J., said; '(I)t is competent to corroborate a witness by showing that he has previously made the same ......