State v. Barrington.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Barrington.

53 S.E. 663, 141 N.C. 820, 1906 N.C. LEXIS 166

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 10, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 53 S.E. 663 (State v. Barrington.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Barrington., 53 S.E. 663, 141 N.C. 820, 1906 N.C. LEXIS 166 (N.C. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

*822 Hoke, J.,

after stating the case: The authorities of this State are to the effect that the fact that the offense charged was committed in another 'State is available under the plea of not guilty. They have also established that such fact is a matter of defense and the burden of proving it is on the defendant. State v. Mitchell, 83 N. C., 674; State v. Buchanan, 130 N. C., 660. There was no error, therefore, in the charge of the court below on this aspect of the case. The judge was correct also in refusing to give the defendant’s prayer, that if the evidence was believed the jury should render a verdict of not guilty. The copy of the survey, annexed by consent as a part of the record, was not in evidence on the trial, and if it had been the greatest effect that could have been given it would be to hold that the line thereby established was in law the correct boundary line between the States. Where such lime was placed by the survey is a question of fact which could only be determined by the jury.

The prosecutor testified on his examination in chief that the fight took place in North Carolina and the cross-examination did not disclose such a connection between the survey spoken of by the witness and the official survey, as to justify the court in ignoring the positive statement of the witness that the offense was committed in North Carolina.

The case was properly submitted to the jury under a correct charge, they have decided the matter against the defendant and the court holds there was

No Error.

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

*822 Hoke, J.,

after stating the case: The authorities of this State are to the effect that the fact that the offense charged was committed in another 'State is available under the plea of not guilty. They have also established that such fact is a matter of defense and the burden of proving it is on the defendant. State v. Mitchell, 83 N. C., 674; State v. Buchanan, 130 N. C., 660. There was no error, therefore, in the charge of the court below on this aspect of the case. The judge was correct also in refusing to give the defendant’s prayer, that if the evidence was believed the jury should render a verdict of not guilty. The copy of the survey, annexed by consent as a part of the record, was not in evidence on the trial, and if it had been the greatest effect that could have been given it would be to hold that the line thereby established was in law the correct boundary line between the States. Where such lime was placed by the survey is a question of fact which could only be determined by the jury.

The prosecutor testified on his examination in chief that the fight took place in North Carolina and the cross-examination did not disclose such a connection between the survey spoken of by the witness and the official survey, as to justify the court in ignoring the positive statement of the witness that the offense was committed in North Carolina.

The case was properly submitted to the jury under a correct charge, they have decided the matter against the defendant and the court holds there was

No Error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 S.E. 663, 141 N.C. 820, 1906 N.C. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-barrington-nc-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack