State v. Bridges

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Bridges

146 S.E.2d 107, 266 N.C. 354, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1346

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 14, 1966·No. 827·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

PER Cubiam.

Ben Grantham’s testimony positively identified defendant as one of the participants in the robbery charged. Mr. Merritt testified, “I think he (defendant) is the man that did it.” His “lack of positiveness” as to the identification of defendant went to the weight and not to the admissibility of the testimony. State v. Church, 231 N.C. 39, 55 S.E. 2d 792; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence § 129 (2d Ed. 1963). Defendant’s assignment of error based upon an exception to this evidence cannot be sustained.

Defendant’s defense was alibi. All the evidence tends to show a completed robbery accomplished with the use of firearms. There was no evidence from which the jury could find that any of the lesser offenses included within an indictment charging armed robbery were committed. Therefore the judge was not, as defendant contends, required to instruct the jury that it might return a verdict of guilty of common-law robbery. State v. Bell, 228 N.C. 659, 46 S.E. 2d 834. See State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 159-60, 84 S.E. 2d 545, 547-48. The judge’s definition of reasonable doubt was in accord with our decisions. State v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E. 2d 133.

In the trial we find

No error.

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

PER Cubiam.

Ben Grantham’s testimony positively identified defendant as one of the participants in the robbery charged. Mr. Merritt testified, “I think he (defendant) is the man that did it.” His “lack of positiveness” as to the identification of defendant went to the weight and not to the admissibility of the testimony. State v. Church, 231 N.C. 39, 55 S.E. 2d 792; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence § 129 (2d Ed. 1963). Defendant’s assignment of error based upon an exception to this evidence cannot be sustained.

Defendant’s defense was alibi. All the evidence tends to show a completed robbery accomplished with the use of firearms. There was no evidence from which the jury could find that any of the lesser offenses included within an indictment charging armed robbery were committed. Therefore the judge was not, as defendant contends, required to instruct the jury that it might return a verdict of guilty of common-law robbery. State v. Bell, 228 N.C. 659, 46 S.E. 2d 834. See State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 159-60, 84 S.E. 2d 545, 547-48. The judge’s definition of reasonable doubt was in accord with our decisions. State v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E. 2d 133.

In the trial we find

No error.

State v. Bridges, 146 S.E.2d 107, 266 N.C. 354, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1346 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

146 S.E.2d 107 (State v. Bridges) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related