State v. Roman
| Decision Date | 21 May 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 654,654 |
| Parties | STATE, v. ROMAN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Hosea V. Price, Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellant.
Atty. Gen. Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen. Claude L. Love, for the State.
The record of case on appeal discloses that defendant groups his exceptions under eleven assignments of error. In his brief here he states four questions as being involved on the appeal. But he confines his argument exclusively to the assignment of error based upon exceptions to failure of the trial court to charge the jury in accordance with provisions of G.S. § 1-180, Chap. 107 of 1949 Session Laws of North Carolina.
Hence, those exceptions, in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned by him in accordance with provisions of Rule 28 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544, at pages 562-563. Nevertheless, since this is a capital felony, we have examined the matters to which those exceptions relate, and find in them no merit.
Indeed, the incriminating circumstances, revealed by the evidence offered by the State are "of such a nature and so connected or related as to point unerringly to the defendant's guilt and to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis'. * * * State v. Stiwinter, 211 N.C. 278, 189 S.E. 868 '. See State v. Fulk, 232 N.C. 118, 59 S.E.2d 617. Such evidence is legally sufficient to take the case to the jury, and to support a verdict of guilty on the charge under which defendant stands indicted.
And in respect of the exception presented, and argued by defendant, we turn to the provisions of the statute--G.S. § 1-180, as so amended. It reads:
It is contended that the court stated the evidence in too much detail, and too great length,--so much so that it amounted to a statement of the State's contentions, rather...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Doss
...to have done so would not have been error. The State introduced extensive evidence, while defendant offered none. State v. Roman, 235 N.C. 627, 70 S.E.2d 857 (1952); State v. Davenport, 227 N.C. 475, 42 S.E.2d 686 (1947); State v. Jessup, 219 N.C. 620, 14 S.E.2d 668 (1941). The court fully ......
-
State v. Duncan
...in the form prescribed by the statute is sufficient. State v. Haynes, 276 N.C. 150, 156, 171 S.E.2d 435, 439 (1969); State v. Roman, 235 N.C. 627, 70 S.E.2d 857 (1952); State v. Kirksey, 227 N.C. 445, 42 S.E.2d 613 Defendant was charged in one bill of indictment with the murder of Martha Tu......
-
State v. Smith
...nor took the stand in his own behalf. A study of the record leaves the impression that this exception is unfounded. State v. Roman, 235 N.C. 627, 70 S.E.2d 857; State v. Jessup, 219 N.C. 620, 14 S.E.2d Further, the defendant insists that the judgment imposed in the manslaughter case was exc......
- State v. Sears