State v. Hall, 329
| Decision Date | 13 April 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 329,329 |
| Citation | 147 S.E.2d 548,267 N.C. 90 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Hubert Henry HALL. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. Bernard A. Harrell, for the State.
Lila Bellar, Charlotte, Attorney, for defendant appellant.
The record does not show the verdict, judgment appeal, entries, or return to the appeal from the Caldwell County Recorder's Court, which is assigned as error by the appellant. However, the record contains a stipulation that the defendant was tried in the Recorder's Court; was found guilty, and appealed from the judgment pronounced to the Superior Court of Caldwell County. The corollary of this situation appeared in State v. Hill, 223 N.C. 753, 28 S.E.2d 99, in which the record showed no appeal entries in the municipal court. The attorney general moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction of the Superior Court which was denied 'for that it appears on the agreed case on appeal that the action originated in the municipal court of High Point and on appeal was tried in the Superior Court.'
The remaining exceptions are to the effect that the court in the charge used phrases such as 'presumption of innocence,' 'burden of proof,' 'quantum' and 'reasonable doubt,' but did not define or explain them to the jury. The record shows no request that these terms be defined and in State v. Browder, 252 N.C. 35, 112 S.E.2d 728, the court held that it did not constitute error to fail to define 'reasonable doubt' in the absence of a request. A similar holding as to 'presumption of innocence' appears in State v. Perry, 226 N.C. 530, 39 S.E.2d 460 and the same reasoning will apply to the other terms and phrases.
The defendant complains that in referring to the provisions of G.S. § 20--138 the court said it provided against material loss of faculties from the use of intoxicants or narcotic drugs, since there was no claim that the defendant was under the influence of the latter. The court did not even intimate as much and his judicial mandate referred only to intoxication. 'The charge of the court must be read as a whole * * *, in the same connected way that the judge is supposed to have intended it and the jury to have considered it * * *.' State v. Wilson, 176 N.C. 751, 97 S.E. 496. 'Even if there is technical error, courts will not reverse where it clearly appears that it is not substantial and could not have affected the result.' State v. Davis, 175 N.C. 723, 724, 95 S.E. 48, 50.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanders
...applicable thereto. We find no merit in defendant's exceptions to the charge. State v. McLean, 234 N.C. 283, 67 S.E.2d 75; State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E.2d 548; State v. Hairston, 222 N.C. 455, 23 S.E.2d Defendant's last assignment of error relates to the court's pronouncing the judgm......
-
State v. Chandler
...the fact that isolated expressions, standing alone, might be considered erroneous will afford no ground for a reversal. State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E.2d 548 (1966). Furthermore, insubstantial technical errors which could not have affected the result will not be held prejudicial. State......
-
State v. McDougall
...State v. Silhan, supra, 302 N.C. 223, 275 S.E.2d 450 (1981); State v. Tomblin, 276 N.C. 273, 171 S.E.2d 901 (1970); State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E.2d 548 (1966). The court, after giving the quoted instruction, specifically charged the jury as to each mitigating circumstances relied upo......
-
State v. Tolley
...jury, the fact that some expressions, standing alone, might be considered erroneous will afford no ground for reversal. State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E.2d 548 (1966). When the foregoing principles are applied to the challenged instruction, it is obvious that defendant was not prejudiced......