State v. McNair, 669
| Decision Date | 29 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 669,669 |
| Citation | 272 N.C. 130,157 S.E.2d 660 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Tommy McNAIR. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Staff Atty. Raleigh A. Vanore, for the state.
W. Ritchie Smith, Jr., Fayetteville, for defendant appellant.
'It is well settled in this jurisdiction that although the jury should receive and act upon such testimony with caution, the unsupported testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to sustain a conviction if it satisfies the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.' State v. Tilley, 239 N.C. 245, 249, 79 S.E.2d 473, 476, and cases cited; State v. Saunders, 245 N.C. 338, 342, 95 S.E.2d 876, 879; State v. Terrell, 256 N.C. 232, 236, 123 S.E.2d 469, 472. Too, '(i)t is thoroughly established law in North Carolina that without regard to any previous confederation or design, when two or more persons aid and abet each other in the commission of a crime, all being present, all are principals and equally guilty.' State v. Spencer, 239 N.C. 604, 611, 80 S.E.2d 670, 675, and cases cited; State v. Peeden, 253 N.C. 562, 564, 117 S.E.2d 398, 400.
Applying the legal principals stated above, there was evidence which, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to show defendant was an active participant in the robbery of Mark Edwards. It was amply sufficient to require submission to the jury and to support defendant's conviction of common law robbery. Hence, Assignment of Error No. 1 based on Exception No. 1, directed to the court's refusal to allow defendant's motion as in case of nonsuit, is without merit.
The charge of the trial court was not included in the record on appeal. Hence, it is presumed the jury was instructed correctly on every principle of law applicable to the facts. State v. Strickland, 254 N.C. 658, 119 S.E.2d 781; State v. Hoover, 252 N.C. 133, 140--141, 113 S.E.2d 281, 287 and cases cited therein.
Defendant's Assignments of Error Nos. 2, 3 and 4, based on Exceptions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, refer to the portion of the record quoted below.
'OBJECTION BY THE DEFENDANT OVERRULED
'OBJECTION BY DEFENDANT OVERRULED
'A. That is the only one.
sentence and put you on probation and you are on probation now?
'OBJECTION BY DEFENDANT OVERRULED
'A. That is correct.
'OBJECTION BY DEFENDANT OVERRULED
In Assignment of Error No. 2 based on Exception No. 2 defendant asserts the court erred in allowing the State to show, on cross-examination of defendant, 'that the defendant had been previously indicted by the grand jury for larceny of a car when the evidence showed the defendant was never convicted of that offense.' On this appeal, we need not reconsider whether the State should be permitted to cross-examine a defendant, for purposes of impeachment, with reference to whether he had been Indicted for a specified criminal offense. See Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, Second Edition, § 112, p. 255. Here, defendant testified he Had not been indicted for larceny. In view of defendant's unequivocal negative answer, the solicitor's question cannot be deemed prejudicial to defendant.
In Assignments of Error Nos. 3 and 4, based on Exceptions Nos. 3 and 4, defendant asserts the court erred in allowing the State to introduce evidence that defendant had been given a sentence of eighteen months and was on probation at the time the alleged offense for which he was being tried was committed. It was permissible for the State to elicit on cross-examination of defendant, for purposes of impeachment, that defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...161 (1961); State v. Maes, 81 N.M. 550, 469 P.2d 529 (1970); State v. Madden, 292 N.C. 114, 232 S.E.2d 656 (1977); State v. McNair, 272 N.C. 130, 157 S.E.2d 660 (1967); State v. Wolery, 46 Ohio St.2d 316, 348 N.E.2d 351 (1976); State v. Flonnory, 31 Ohio St.2d 124, 285 N.E.2d 726 (1972); Co......
-
State v. Finch
...of whether the witness is the accused. Any intimation to the contrary expressed in the per curiam decision in State v. McNair, 272 N.C. 130, 157 S.E.2d 660 (1967), is expressly We now apply this law to the facts of the present case. With respect to the cross-examination of State's witness N......
-
State v. Wolery
...349; State v. Begyn (1961), 34 N.J. 35, 54, 167 A.2d 161; State v. Maes (1970), 81 N.M. 550, 554, 469 P.2d 529; State v. McNair (1967), 272 N.C. 130, 132, 157 S.E.2d 660; Commonwealth v. Bradley (1972), 449 Pa. 19, 21-22, 295 A.2d 842; State v. Pella (1966), 101 R.I. 62, 69, 220 A.2d 226; S......
-
State v. Madden
...by them sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, it will support a conviction. State v. McNair, 272 N.C. 130, 157 S.E.2d 660 (1967). It is also well established that, upon a motion for judgment of nonsuit, the evidence by the State is to be deemed true and......