State v. Bright

118 S.E.2d 411, 254 N.C. 226, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 382
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided March 1, 1961·Published

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

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

State v. Bright, 118 S.E.2d 411, 254 N.C. 226, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 382 (N.C. 1961).

118 S.E.2d 411 (State v. Bright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)