State v. Floyd
| Decision Date | 07 June 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 722,722 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Jimmie FLOYD, alias Johnny Floyd. |
F. D. Hackett, Jr., Robert Weinstein, Lumberton, for defendant, appellant.
Atty. Gen. George B. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harry W. McGalliard, for the State.
The first assignment of error brought up for consideration is based on exceptions to portions of the charge lifted out of text, pertaining to the subject of alibi. But considering the charge contextually it does not appear that there is prejudicial error. What is said by this Court, in this respect, in State v. Bridgers, 233 N.C. 577, 64 S.E.2d 867, in State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, at page 726, 68 S.E.2d 844, 31 A.L.R.2d 682, and in State v. Cephus, 239 N.C. 521, 80 S.E.2d 147, is pertinent here. There this Court considered that error prejudicial to defendant did not appear. And in both the Bridgers and Minton cases suggested forms to be applied are set forth, and need not be repeated now.
The next assignment of error is predicated upon exception four to the proceeding had on the return of the jury for further information relating to identity of defendant.
Defendant contends that here he was put on the stop, so to speak, that as a result of the court's inquiry directed to the jury he was required to give evidence against himself or risk the ire of the jury by his refusal.
This position is not well taken for these reasons: While in this respect, as stated in Stansbury's North Carolina Evidence, § 57, State v. Simpson, 133 N.C. 676, 45 S.E. 567.
Indeed in State v. Riddle and Huffman, 205 N.C. 591, 172 S.E. 400, this headnote reveals the ruling of the Court in this manner: 'The constitutional guarantee that a defendant shall not be compelled to testify against himself, Art. I, sec. 11, does not preclude testimony by a witness as to marks on defendant's body tending to identify him as the perpetrator of the crime.' State v. Grayson, 239 N.C. 453, 80 S.E.2d 387, and cases cited. Also in State v. Vincent, 222 N.C. 543, 23 S.E.2d 832, opinion by Stacy, C. J., this Court held that the State has a right to have a prisoner identified, and there was no error, in a prosecution for rape, for the court to require the defendant to stand up, while prosecutrix was on the witness stand, and allow her to identify him as the man who assaulted her on the night in question. And in both State v. Riddle and Huffman, supra, and State v. Vincent, supra, the Court distinguishes the case State v. Jacobs, 50 N.C. 259, relied upon by defendant. In the Vincent case [222 N.C. 543, 23 S.E.2d 833] it is said that: '* * the identity of the defendant, and not his status or degree of color, was at issue,' citing State v. Garret. 71 N.C. 85. It is pointed out that under State v. Johnson, 67 N.C. 55, it was held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Leonard, 0602
-
State v. McNeil
...the rule that witnesses may testify as to a defendant's physical condition or as to identifying marks on his body. See State v. Floyd, 246 N.C. 434, 98 S.E.2d 478 (1957). This assignment of error is By his fourth assignment of error defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing ......
-
State v. Sherron, 6914SC72
...pending his appeal. A defendant may be sentenced to the Central Prison only upon conviction of a felony. G.S. § 148--28; State v. Floyd, 246 N.C. 434, 98 S.E.2d 478; State v. Cagle, 241 N.C. 134, 84 S.E.2d 649. in the present case was convicted only of a misdemeanor and should not have been......
-
Morgan v. Bell Bakeries, Inc.
... ... admit as relevant the evidence of all those matters which shed a real, though perhaps an indirect and feeble light on the question at issue.' State v. Stone, 240 N.C. 606, 83 S.E. 2d 543, 545. Error does not appear and the exceptions cannot be sustained ... The defendants' ... ...