State v. Jones
| Citation | 106 S.E. 817,181 N.C. 546 |
| Decision Date | 27 April 1921 |
| Docket Number | 378. |
| Parties | STATE v. JONES. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; J. Bis Ray, Judge.
Charlie Jones was convicted of an assault on a female, and appeals. No error.
Where defendant was prosecuted for assault with intent to rape, a conviction of assault on a female by a man over 18 years of age was not erroneous because there was no charge in the bill that at the time of the alleged assault accused was over 18 where the proof clearly showed that he was over 18 at that time and on the trial no question was made as to that fact.
The indictment is for assault with intent to commit rape on one Lillian Marshall, tried before his honor, J. Bis Ray, judge and a jury at December term, 1920, of the superior court of Guilford county. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty of an assault on a female.
S. B Adams and R. C. Strudwick, both of Greensboro, for appellant.
James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is chiefly urged for error that, while the defendant was on the stand as a witness in his own behalf, the court, in endeavoring to bring the witness to testify on matters relevant to the issue, made comment:
"Up to now the defendant's personal testimony was like a Georgia lake, a mile wide and an inch deep."
This court has always been very careful to enforce the provision of the statute which prohibits a judge from expression of opinion in the trial of causes before the jury, Consolidated Statutes, § 564, extending the inhibition to such expression in the hearing of the jury at any time during the trial, and whether the objectionable comments may be towards the testimony offered, the witness testifying, or the litigant and the cause he is endeavoring to maintain. State v. Rogers, 173 N.C. 755, 91 S.E. 854, L. R. A. 1917E, 857; State v. Harris, 166 N.C. 243, 80 S.E. 1067; State v. Cook, 162 N.C. 586, 77 S.E. 759; Park v. Exum, 156 N.C. 228, 72 S.E. 309; Withers v. Lane, 144 N.C. 184, 56 S.E. 855; State v. Dick, 60 N.C. 440, 86 Am. Dec. 439.
In the present instance, however, while the comments objected to may have been ill advised, we are of opinion that they should not be held for reversible error, because, from the facts and attendant circumstances disclosed in the record, it appears that they were made and necessarily understood as a mere pleasantry, and could have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Coffey
...State v. Lyon, supra; Gunter v. Watson, 49 N.C. 455. Moreover, it is not perceived wherein it could have been hurtful. State v. Jones, 181 N.C. 546, 106 S.E. 817. It was not the thought or purpose of the solicitor to offer in evidence the testimony of the witness taken upon the former heari......
-
State v. Benton
...... Death by asphyxiation. . . The. defendant appeals, assigning errors. . . Harry. M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes. and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State. . . Jones. & Jones, of Rockingham, and R. O. Everett, of Durham, for. defendant. . . STACY,. Chief Justice. . . The. sufficiency of the indictment is challenged by motion in. arrest of judgment, because it fails to allege the use of. 'force' in the ......
-
State v. Grimes
...226 N.C. 66, 36 S.E.2d 706; State v. Morgan, 225 N.C. 549, 35 S.E.2d 621; State v. Stokes, 181 N.C. 539, 106 S.E. 763; State v. Jones, 181 N.C. 546, 106 S.E. 817. Moreover, in all these cases the bills were for more offenses or more aggravated assaults. There was no error in allowing the so......
-
State v. Bryant
...... questions to a witness; and in Greene v. Newsome,. 184 N.C. 77, 113 S.E. 569, in which the judge said that the. absence of the defendants was "a circumstance that a. fraud had been committed." See, also, State v. Hart, 186 N.C. 582, 120 S.E. 345. In State v. Jones, 181 N.C. 546, 106 S.E. 817, the remark excepted. to was not fatal to the conviction, because it was. "necessarily understood as a mere pleasantry, and could. have reasonably had no appreciable effect on the. result.". . . If we. treat the remarks made by the presiding ......