State v. Barham

92 S.E.2d 434, 244 N.C. 80, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 645
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 2, 1956·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant seriously contends that the State’s evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. A careful consideration of the evidence, however, leads us to the conclusion that it is sufficient, and we so hold. Consequently, the assignments of error, in our opinion, present no prejudicial error that would justify disturbing the verdict rendered below.

No error.

Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Barham, 92 S.E.2d 434, 244 N.C. 80, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 645 (N.C. 1956).

92 S.E.2d 434 (State v. Barham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Collins
100 S.E.2d 489 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)