State v. Seipel
| Decision Date | 06 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 364,364 |
| Citation | 113 S.E.2d 432,252 N.C. 335 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Clarence Henry SEIPEL. |
John R. McLaughlin, Statesville, for defendant-appellant.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Careful consideration of matters to which assignments of error relate fails to reveal prejudicial error for which the judgment below should be disturbed. The evidence shown in the record of case on appeal makes a case for the jury sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, upon which the judgment below is predicated.
Indeed the principal error assigned relates to remarks made by the Solicitor in his argument to the jury to which defendant objected. In respect thereto the record discloses that the remarks of the Solicitor were apparently invited by remarks of the attorney for defendant in addressing the jury. As to such matter, the control of arguments of Solicitor and of counsel to the jury must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court. Such is the case here. A new trial is not justified.
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stegmann
...than impeachment, we perceive no error in the trial court's ruling upon the district attorney's responsive argument. State v. Seipel, 252 N.C. 335, 113 S.E.2d 432 (1960); State v. Knotts,168 N.C. 173, 83 S.E. 972 (1914); 75 Am.Jur.2d, Trial § 233 (1974). Defendant's eighth assignment is Def......
-
State v. Barfield
...to the exercise of the sound discretion of the presiding judge. State v. Monk,supra ; State v. Westbrook, supra ; State v. Seipel, 252 N.C. 335, 113 S.E.2d 432 (1960). The district attorney has the right and the duty to cross-examine vigorously a defendant who takes the stand in his own def......
-
State v. Miller
...279 N.C. 18, 181 S.E.2d 572 (1971), Vacated for other reasons, 408 U.S. 939, 92 S.Ct. 2873, 33 L.Ed.2d 761 (1972); State v. Seipel, 252 N.C. 335, 113 S.E.2d 432 (1960); State v. Barefoot, supra; State v. Little, 228 N.C. 417, 45 S.E.2d 542 (1947). Counsel may argue to the jury the facts in ......
-
State v. Monk
...of the presiding judge and that counsel must be allowed wide latitude in the argument of hotly contested cases. State v. Seipel, 252 N.C. 335, 113 S.E.2d 432 (1960); State v. Barefoot, 241 N.C. 650, 86 S.E.2d 424 (1955); State v. Bowen, 230 N.C. 710, 55 S.E.2d 466 (1949); State v. Little, 2......