State v. Hendricks
| Decision Date | 27 February 1935 |
| Docket Number | 722. |
| Citation | 178 S.E. 557,207 N.C. 873 |
| Parties | STATE v. HENDRICKS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; McElroy, Judge.
Henry Hendricks was convicted under bill charging unlawful and willful breaking and entering into a railroad car containing merchandise and chattels with intent to steal such merchandise and chattels, larceny of merchandise of value of $61, and unlawful and felonious receiving goods and chattels knowing them to have been stolen, and he appeals.
No error.
John C. Wallace and Harvey A. Lupton, both of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell, and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The defendant appeals from a conviction and judgment upon a three-count bill charging (1) the unlawful and willful breaking and entering into a railroad car containing merchandise and chattels with intent to steal such merchandise and chattels (C. S. § 4237); (2) the larceny of a case of cigarettes of the value of $61, the chattels of the Southern Railway Company; and (3) the unlawful and felonious receiving said goods and chattels knowing them to have been stolen.
The evidence which the defendant makes the basis for exceptive assignments of error we think was clearly competent, upon cross-examination, to impeach the testimony of the defendant. We cannot here consider what the solicitor may have said relative to this evidence, since his statements are not in the record. If the defendant desired to have the evidence restricted to a particular purpose, he should have made request to that effect. Rule 21 of this court.
The defendant complains that the charge lacks fullness and detail. We have read the charge carefully and are of the opinion that it does "state in a plain and correct manner the evidence given in the case and declare and explain the law arising thereon." C. S. § 564. If the defendant desired more full or detailed instruction as to any particular phase of the evidence or the law, he should have requested special instructions. State v. Wade, 169 N.C. 306, 84 S.E. 768.
We find no error on the record.
Attention is called to the fact that the defendant's brief does not comply with rule 28 of this court. See State v. Newton, 207 N.C. 323, 177 S.E. 184, and State v. Bryant, 178 N.C. 702, 100 S.E. 430.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hunter
...supra; State v. Noell, 284 N.C. 670, 202 S.E.2d 750 (1974); State v. Gordon, 224 N.C. 304, 30 S.E.2d 43 (1944); State v. Hendricks, 207 N.C. 873, 178 S.E. 557 (1935); State v. O'Neal, 187 N.C. 22, 120 S.E. 817 (1924). For the aforementioned reasons, defendant's assignments of error as to th......
-
State v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Co.
... ... injure his rivals and then fix prices after competition was ... removed. If the defendant wanted a fuller explanation, he ... should have requested it. State v. Ammons, 204 N.C ... 753, 169 S.E. 631; State v. Gore, 207 N.C. 618, 178 ... S.E. 209; State v. Hendricks, 207 N.C. 873, 178 S.E ... The ... court did not impinge on C.S. § 564, but in a clear and ... logical way it set forth the facts and gave the contentions ... fairly on both sides, and charged the law applicable to the ... facts. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" was charged and ... ...
-
State v. Biggerstaff
... ... parties, without exception to its correctness in stating the ... law, will not be sustained. State v. Buffkin, 209 ... N.C. 117, 183 S.E. 543. If more complete instructions in ... stating the contentions were desired they should have been ... requested by the appellant. State v. Hendricks, 207 ... N.C. 873, 178 S.E. 557; State v. Wade, 169 N.C. 306, ... 84 S.E. 768 ... The ... final assignment of error, No. 12, is discussed in the ... appellant's brief and contains the following language: ... 'The Court failed to state [226 N.C. 606] in a plain and ... ...