State v. Freeze
Decision Date | 17 November 1915 |
Docket Number | (No. 355.) |
Citation | 86 S.E. 1000,170 N.C. 710 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE. v. FREEZE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Lyon, Judge.
Hazel Freeze was convicted of stealing a stack of hay, and appeals. Affirmed.
There was a verdict of guilty, judgment on the verdict, and defendant appealed on the alleged ground that he was not present at the time the verdict against him was rendered. The case on appeal agreed upon by counsel, after stating the indictment, plea, impaneling of the jury, evidence, verdict, and judgment, and appeal without exception or other statement appearing in the record, contains the following:
"Defendant duly excepted to the verdict of the jury on the ground that neither he nor his attorney were present at the rendering of the verdict against him by the jury, and the defendant assigns as error that the verdict of the jury was rendered against him in the absence of both himself and his attorney, and that he had no opportunity whatever to poll the jury, as they were discharged before himself or his attorney were informed of the verdict."
N. L. Eure, of Greensboro, for appellant.
The Attorney General and T. H. Calvert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
State v. Cherry, 154 N. C. 624, 626, 70 S. E. 294, 295, in speaking of the right of a defendant to be present at different stages of the trial in capital and lesser felonies, this court said: In
—citing State v. Pierce, 123 N. C. 745, 31 S. E. 847; State v. Kelly, 97 N. C 404, 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Bittings
...affirm the judgment, on motion of the Attorney General, for failure properly to present exceptive assignments of error. State v. Freeze, 170 N. C. 710, 86 S. E. 1000; State v. Kelly (N. C.)175 S. E. 294, this day decided. In defense of counsel now appearing for the prisoner, however, it sho......
-
State v. Anderson
...rule on appeal is that questions are to be presented by exceptive assignments of error. Rule 19 (3), Rules of Practice; State v. Freeze, 170 N.C. 710, 86 S.E. 1000; Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. Finally, the defendants stressfully contended they were discredited in their defense b......
-
State v. Bittings
... ... Chief Justice (after stating the case) ... If this ... were not a capital case, it would be necessary to affirm the ... judgment, on motion of the Attorney General, for failure ... properly to present exceptive assignments of error. State ... v. Freeze, 170 N.C. 710, 86 S.E. 1000; State v ... Kelly (N. C.) 175 S.E. 294, this day decided. In defense ... of counsel now appearing for the prisoner, however, it should ... be said they did not represent him at the trial or in the ... court below ... No ... exceptions were ... ...
-
State v. Brown
... ... appeal' --considering it now as 'deemed approved' ... -- but these assignments are based on no exceptions ... Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175. Only ... exceptive assignments of error are availing on appeal. In ... re Beard, 202 N.C. 661, 163 S.E. 748; State v. Freeze, ... 170 N.C. 710, 86 S.E. 1000." ... In the ... case of State v. Bittings, 206 N.C. 798, 800, 175 ... S.E. 299, 301, is the following: "If this were not a ... capital case, it would be necessary to affirm the judgment, ... on motion of the Attorney General, for failure ... ...