State v. Edwards, 7010SC430
| Decision Date | 21 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 7010SC430,7010SC430 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Mary MacKay EDWARDS. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, by Asst. Atty. Gen. T. Buie Costen, for the State.
Hubert H. Senter, Franklinton, for defendant.
Defendant assigns as error the portion of the instructions to the jury which defines the term 'under the influence.' The able and learned trial judge properly defined the term for the jury, but he then proceeded to define it again as follows:
The foregoing instruction was error and we are not at liberty to speculate that the jury accepted and applied the correct definition.
New Trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
3 cases
-
State v. Harris
...almost identical to that used by the trial judge in the present case was held to constitute prejudicial error in State v. Edwards, 9 N.C.App. 602, 176 S.E.2d 874, and again in State v. Beasley, N.C.App., 179 S.E.2d 820 (filed 31 March 1971 concurrently with the filing of this opinion). We t......
-
State v. Beasley, 7111SC154
...from the consumption f intoxicants.' (Emphasis ours.) This precise verbiage was held to be prejudicial error in State v. Edwards, 9 N.C.App. 602, 176 S.E.2d 874 (1970). For the reasons stated herein, defendant is entitled to New trial. BROCK and VAUGHN, JJ., concur. ...
- Hodge v. Hodge