State v. Ray
| Decision Date | 16 May 1928 |
| Docket Number | (No. 522.) |
| Citation | 143 S.E. 143 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE . v. RAY et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yancey County; Moore, Judge.
Lum Ray and Marshall Deyton were convicted of murder in the second degree, and they appeal. New trial
Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendants with the murder of one William Laws on August 17, 1927. Upon the call of the case for trial, the solicitor announced that the state would not ask for a verdict of murder in the first degree, but would ask for a verdict of murder in the second degree, or manslaughter, as the evidence might disclose. The defendants entered a plea of not guilty, and undertook to justify the homicide as having been committed in self-defense. Verdict: Guilty of murder in the second degree. Judgment: Imprisonment in the state's prison, at hard labor, for a term of not less than 15 nor more than 20 years. Defendants appeal, assigning errors.
Watson, Hudgins, Watson & Fouts, of Burnsville, for appellants.
D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The validity of the trial is called in question by numerous exceptions and assignments of error, but we shall not consider them seriatim, as it is necessary to award a new trial for error in the following instruction to the jury:
It has been held in a number of cases that where a defendant, in the trial of a criminal prosecution, testifies in his own behalf, it is error for the trial court to instruct the jury to scrutinize his testimony and to receive it with grains of allowance, because of his interest in the verdict, without adding that, if they find the witness worthy of belief, they should give as full credit to his testimony, as any other witness notwithstanding his interest. State v. Graham, 133 N. C. 645, 45 S. E. 514; State v. Lee, 121 N. O. 544, 28 & E. 552; State v. Collins, 118 N. C. 1203, 24 S. E. 118; State v. Holloway, 117 N. C. 730, 23 S. E. 168.
In State v. Lee, supra, the rule is stated as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vick
...to any other credible witness. State v. Turner, 253 N.C. 37, 116 S.E.2d 194; State v. Holland, 216 N.C. 610, 6 S.E.2d 217; State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 619, 143 S.E. 143; State v. Green, 187 N.C. 466, 122 S.E. 178. We need not decide whether this prosecuting witness is an 'interested' witness sin......
-
State v. Rhinehart
...as full credit as any other witness." State v. Deal, 207 N.C. 448, 177 S.E. 332; State v. Bcal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604; State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 619, 143 S.E. 143; State v. Beavers, 188 N.C. 595, 125 S.E. 258; State v. Wilcox, 206 N.C. 691, 175 S.E. 122. In prosecutions for perjury, it is......
-
State v. Edwards
...that, had the defendant testified in his own behalf, this instruction could hardly be said to meet the test laid down in State v. Ray, 195 N.C. 619, 143 S. E. 143, 144: "* * * where a defendant, in the trial of a criminal prosecution, testifies in his own behalf, it is error for the trial c......
-
State v. Deal, 651.
...and cases there cited. The cases cited and relied upon by the defendant, State v. Wilcox, 206 N. C. 691, 175 S. E. 122, and State v. Ray, 195 N. C. 619, 143 S. E. 143, are not apposite. It is not perceived upon what theory error may be imputed for refusal to arrest the judgment. A judgment ......