State v. Lee, 217.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 217.,217. |
| Citation | 213 N.C. 319,195 S.E. 785 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. LEE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Harnett County; W. H. S. Burgwyn, Special Judge.
Monroe Lee was convicted for willfully and wantonly burning a barn, the property of Wilson Lucas, and he appeals.
No error.
Defendant was indicted for willfully and wantonly burning a barn, the property of Wilson Lucas. From judgment pronounced on verdict of guilty, defendant appealed.
J. R. Young and I. R. Williams, both of Dunn, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMullan and Emmett C. Willis, Asst. Attys. Gen., for State.
The principal question presented by this appeal is the correctness of the ruling of the court below in denying defendant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit. When this same case was here on the defendant's appeal at Spring term, 1937 (211 N.C. 326, 190 S.E. 234, 235), a new trial was awarded for error in the admission of evidence. In that case it was said:
Substantially the same testimony was presented by the State in this last trial, and again the jury has found the defendant guilty. The motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly denied.
The other exceptions noted at the trial and assigned as error cannot be sustained. We find no sufficient reason to disturb the result of the trial.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jackson
...(1969). See also State v. Hill, 281 N.C. 312, 188 S.E.2d 288 (1972); State v. Stone, 226 N.C. 97, 36 S.E.2d 704 (1946); State v. Lee, 213 N.C. 319, 195 S.E. 785 (1938). This assignment of error is The defendant next argues that the trial court erred by limiting him to only six peremptory ch......
-
State v. Strickland
...sec. 2497, p. 316; Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Vol. 2, sec. 922, p. 1608; State v. McLeod, 196 N.C. 542, 544, 146 S.E. 409; State v. Lee, 213 N.C. 319, 195 S.E. 785; v. King, 162 N.C. 580, 77 S.E. 301; State v. Griffith, 185 N.C. 756, 117 S.E. 586; State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 185, 159 S.E. 33......
-
State v. Wright
...or the sufficiency of the evidence to be submitted to the jury, the decision of the Court on the former appeal is decisive. State v. Lee, 213 N.C. 319, 195 S.E. 785. Accord: State v. Peterson, 226 N.C. 770, 40 S.E.2d 362; Jernigan v. Jernigan, 207 N.C. 831, 178 S.E. 587. See also 5 Am.Jur.2......
-
Mucci's Will, In re
... ... He relied on cases as does the propounder here which state the rule that inasmuch as a caveat proceeding is In rem, motions for nonsuit or requests for a ... ...