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

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 14, 1966

Docket827

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 S.E.2d 107, 266 N.C. 354, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bridges-nc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack