State v. Bright
118 S.E.2d 411, 254 N.C. 226, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 382
This text of 118 S.E.2d 411 (State v. Bright) 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. Bright, 118 S.E.2d 411, 254 N.C. 226, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 382 (N.C. 1961).
Opinion
The sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges was not challenged by motion to nonsuit or for directed verdict. To secure a new trial it is necessary for appellant, by proper assignment of error, Hunt v. Davis, 248 N.C. 69, 102 S.E. 2d 405, to show prejudicial error. Barefoot v. Rulnick, 252 N.C. 483, 113 S.E. 2d 921. Here appellant failed in both requirements.
Appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Hunt v. Davis
102 S.E.2d 405 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Barefoot v. Rulnick
113 S.E.2d 921 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
118 S.E.2d 411, 254 N.C. 226, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bright-nc-1961.