State v. Willoughby, (No. 1.)
| Decision Date | 15 September 1920 |
| Docket Number | (No. 1.) |
| Citation | 103 S.E. 903 |
| Parties | STATE . v. WILLOUGHBY. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Pasquotank County.
Joe Willoughby was convicted under an indictment charging the breaking and entering of a store with intent to steal, and the stealing of certain goods from such store, and appeals. No error.
Aydlett & Simpson, of Elizabeth City, for appellant.
James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
On the trial in the superior court it was—
"conceded and admitted that the store had been broken into and robbed, and that the only question for the jury to decide was whether it had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the guilty party."
This is the statement in the record, and it answers the criticisms of the charge, which are mainly directed to the failure to "state in a plain and correct maimer the evidence given in the case and declare and explain the law arising thereon, " as required by statute (Rev. § 535), as it reduced the whole controversy to the determination of one fact, freed from the consideration of any legal question.
It also appears there were no requests for special instructions to the jury, and—
Simmons & Ward v. Davenport, 140 N. C. 411, 53 S. E. 225.
This principle is not disturbed by what is said in State v. Cline, 179 N. C. 704, 103 S. E. 211, because two members of the court dissented in that case, and two members who concurred in the order for a new trial did so on the other grounds than those stated in the opinion.
The defendant specially complains of the following charges to the jury:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Adcock
...v. Branch, 288 N.C. 514, 220 S.E.2d 495 (1975), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 907, 97 S.Ct. 2971, 53 L.Ed.2d 1091 (1977); State v. Willoughby, 180 N.C. 676, 103 S.E. 903 (1920). We therefore deem it necessary to review these conflicting lines of In State v. Adams, 138 N.C. 688, 50 S.E. 765 (1905),......
-
State v. Branch, 1
...request for the charge now submitted by defendant, it is manifest that no reversible error was committed. See also State v. Willoughby, 180 N.C. 676, 103 S.E. 903 (1920). This assignment of error is Mrs. Branch assigns as error the failure of the court to include in its recapitulation of th......
-
Territory Hawai`i v. Corum
...148 S. W. 877, 879;State v. Morris, 94 N. J. L. 19, 108 Atl. 765;State v. Rosa, 72 N. J. L. 462, 62 Atl. 695, 697;State v. Willoughby, 180 N. C. 676, 103 S. E. 903, 904;State v. Riley, 188 N. C. 72, 123 S. E. 303, 304;State v. Portee, 200 N. C. 142, 156 S. E. 783, 784;State v. Robinson, 97 ......
-
State v. Eppley
...possession of this rifle was competent evidence upon the charge of breaking and entering the Carriker home. In State v. Willoughby, 180 N.C. 676, 103 S.E. 903, the defendant was tried and convicted of breaking and entering and of larceny of certain goods from the building so broken and ente......