State v. Bryant
| Decision Date | 15 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 289,289 |
| Citation | 108 S.E.2d 128,250 N.C. 113 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Raymond BRYANT, David Lee Hicks, Bennie Lee Ford, William Allen Atkinson, Henry Williams, William Edward Wilson, Eloyse Ford. |
Malcolm B. Seawell, Atty. Gen., T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Herbert B. Hulse, Goldsboro, Mitchell E. Gadsen, Clinton, Earl Whitted, Jr., Goldsboro, for defendants.
The defendants' first assignment of error is based on their exception to the ruling of the trial court in granting the Solicitor's motion to consolidate the cases for trial.
The general rule with respect to the consolidation of criminal cases is stated in State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252, 254.
In State v. Norton, 222 N.C. 418, 23 S.E.2d 301, 302, the three defendants were charged in separate bills of indictment with an assault upon the same person and the cases were consolidated for trial. Although the defendants did not challenge the consolidation, the Court in its opinion said: The following cases are in accord with the above view: State v. McLean, 209 N.C. 38, 182 S.E. 700; State v. Davis, 214 N.C. 787, 1 S.E.2d 104; State v. Chapman, 221 N.C. 157, 19 S.E.2d 250; State v. Truelove, 224 N.C. 147, 29 S.E.2d 460; and State v. Spencer, 239 N.C. 604, 80 S.E.2d 670.
These appellants cite and rely on State v. Dyer, 239 N.C. 713, 80 S.E.2d 769 and State v. Bonner, 222 N.C. 344, 23 S.E.2d 45. These cases are distinguishable from the one now before us.
In the Dyer case the defendants were charged with separate offenses of the same class, but of offenses having been committed at different times and places. Moreover, the separate offenses were not provable by the same evidence.
In the Bonner case the two defendants were being tried under separate bills of indictment for the first degree murder of the same person, and the cases were consolidated for trial. The State was relying solely for conviction upon alleged separate confessions, each of which incriminated the other defendant and which had not been made in his presence or acquiesced in by him. The consolidation for that reason was held improper.
In the instant case, all of the defendants who were convicted by the jury were together when they made their confessions, and each defendant, according to the evidence, expressly admitted in the presence of the others that he did have sexual intercourse with the prosecuting witness, forcibly and against her will. This assignment of error is overruled.
The defendants also assign as error the refusal of the court below to allow their motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of the State's evidence and upon the renewal thereof at the close of all the evidence.
The defendants insist that the evidence of the prosecuting witness was not worthy of belief, since she first told the officers that she was at home with her two small children; that it was late at night and her husband was away from home looking for work; that she heard a car she thought was her husband's and went out to see. She said at that time a two-tone car drove up beside her and stopped and that two colored boys got out...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phifer
...pronouncement presupposes (1) that the confession is inadmissible as to the codefendant (see State v. Bryant, supra) (250 N.C. 113, 108 S.E.2d 128 (1959)), and (2) that the declarant will not take the stand. If the declarant can be cross-examined, a codefendant has been accorded his right t......
-
State v. Madden
...State v. Overman, 269 N.C. 453, 466, 153 S.E.2d 44 (1967); State v. White, 256 N.C. 244, 123 S.E.2d 483 (1962); State v. Bryant, 250 N.C. 113, 108 S.E.2d 128 (1959); State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252 The defendants are not entitled to a new trial by reason of the sustaining of the ......
-
State v. Grundler
...or that they moved for a severance. The rule of law with respect to consolidation of indictments is stated in State v. Bryant, 250 N.C. 113, 115, 108 S.E.2d 128, 129, quoting from State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 674, 158 S.E. 252, as follows: 'The court is expressly authorized by statute in t......
-
State v. Fox, 83
...not be disturbed upon appeal. State v. Battle, 267 N.C. 513, 148 S.E.2d 599; State v. Hines, 266 N.C. 1, 145 S.E.2d 363; State v. Bryant, 250 N.C. 113, 108 S.E.2d 128; Annot., Right to severance where codefendant has incriminated himself, 54 A.L.R.2d 830 (1957). In State v. Bonner, 222 N.C.......