State v. Harding, 84
| Decision Date | 24 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 84,84 |
| Citation | 140 S.E.2d 244,263 N.C. 799 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Raymond HARDING. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Deputy Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, for the State.
W. M. Styles, Asheville, for defendant.
Defendant's motions for nonsuit were properly overruled. Evidence of the corpus delicti is full and direct. Defendant is identified as the perpetrator of the felonies. The testimony of the prosecutrix is corroborated in every detail. No purpose can be served here in recounting the evidence.
After the solicitor had commenced his argument to the jury, the judge, over the objection of defendant, permitted the State to reopen the evidence and take the testimony of a witness, William McElrath, who had been tardily located and brought into the courtroom, and whose name had been frequently mentioned by other witnesses. He was cross-examined by defendant's counsel, and defendant was permitted to introduce evidence in rebuttal. The judge committed no error in permitting McElrath to testify. 1 Strong: N.C.Index, Criminal Law, § 92, p. 760, and cases cited.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Parisi
- State v. Davis
-
State v. Anderson, 13
...been made to the jury, but the opposing party must be given an opportunity to offer additional evidence in rebuttal. State v. Harding, 263 N.C. 799, 140 S.E.2d 244 (1965); State v. Jackson, 265 N.C. 558, 144 S.E.2d 584 (1965). The record shows that defendant was given an opportunity to offe......
-
State v. Thompson, 7315SC628
...requires that the defendant be afforded an opportunity for rebuttal. State v. Anderson, 281 N.C. 261, 188 S.E.2d 336; State v. Harding, 263 N.C. 799, 140 S.E.2d 244; See State v. Perry, 231 N.C. 467, 57 S.E.2d 774. The defendant can, as in this case, be severely handicapped if the jury is a......