State v. Inscore, 725.
| Decision Date | 31 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | No. 725.,725. |
| Citation | 219 N.C. 759,14 S.E.2d 816 |
| Parties | STATE. v. INSCORE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; J. W. Pless, Jr., Judge.
Charles E. Inscore was convicted of manslaughter and he appeals.
No error.
Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with the felonious slaying of one J. L. McAlister.
Verdict: "Guilty of manslaughter with the recommendation for March" (mercy).
Judgment: Imprisonment in the State's Prison for a term of not less than 4 nor more than 7 years.
The defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and G. B. Patton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
John D. Slawter and Richmond Rucker, both of Winston-Salem, for defendant.
On 19 August, 1940, following a wild automobile ride through the streets of Winston-Salem, in which he was pursued by an officer, the defendant collided with a car at a filling station near the intersection of Sprague and Peachtree Streets, occupied at the time by J. L. McAlister and his wife. Mr. McAlister died within thirty minutes of injuries sustained in the collision. The evidence fully justifies the verdict of manslaughter.
Several exceptions were taken to the manner in which the solicitor was allowed to examine one of the State's witnesses, J. P. Davis, Jr., who was a "thumb rider" in the defendant's car at the time of the collision. Davis had made a statement in writing to the police shortly after the occurrence, and the solicitor gained the impression that his testimony on the stand was at variance with his prior written statement. Whereupon, he asked the privilege of cross-examining the witness, which was granted. Following the cross-examination, the solicitor said he would offer portions of the written statement in corroboration of the witness. The record is not quite clear as to what then happened in respect of the matter: . Objection; overruled; exception.
The question thus presented by the record has been discussed in both briefs with much learning and manifest research. Even if some technical irregularity be con-ceded, we think the matter is too attenuate, considering the case in its entirety, to warrant a disturbance of the result. State v. Noland, 204 N.C. 329, 168 S.E. 412. The culpable conduct of the defendant is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tilley
...refreshing the recollection of the witness and enabling him to testify correctly. State v. Vicks, 223 N.C. 384, 26 S.E.2d 873; State v. Inscore, 219 N.C. 759, 14 S.E.2d § 816; In re Will of Williams, 215 N.C. 259, 1 S.E.2d 857; State v. Noland, 204 N.C. 329, 168 S.E. 412; State v. Taylor, s......
-
State v. Smith
...death, and are of opinion that upon the record, the pertinent exceptions do not disclose prejudicial or reversible error. State v. Inscore, 219 N.C. 759, 14 S.E.2d 816. instructions to the jury embodied in the Judge's charge are assailed in two respects. In the course of his charge, the Jud......
- Sharpe v. Isley