State v. . Brigman

161 S.E. 727, 201 N.C. 793, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 100
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 16, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 161 S.E. 727 (State v. . Brigman) 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. . Brigman, 161 S.E. 727, 201 N.C. 793, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 100 (N.C. 1931).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Is a wife competent or compellable to give evidence against her husband who is on trial charged with the wilful abandonment and nonsupport of his minor children? C. S., 4447. We think not.

It is provided by C. S., 1802 that, in all criminal actions or proceedings, the husband or wife of the defendant shall be a competent witness for the defendant, but the failure of such witness to be examined shall not be used to the prejudice of the defense, and further: “Nothing herein shall render any husband or wife competent or compellable to give evidence against each other in any criminal action or proceeding, except to prove the fact of marriage in case of bigamy, and except that in all criminal prosecutions of a husband for an assault and battery upon his wife, or for abandoning his wife, or for neglecting to provide for her support, it shall be lawful to examine the wife in behalf of the State against the husband.” The statute declares the incompetency of the wife to give evidence against her husband in any criminal action or proceeding, except in certain cases, but the exception does not include or extend to an action against the husband for the abandonment and nonsupport of his minor children. It was error, therefore, not to sustain the defendant’s objection of his wife’s testimony. S. v. Harbisofo, 94 N. C., 885.

The announcement of the solicitor, made before entering upon the trial, that the State would not prosecute the defendant for the alleged wilful abandonment and nonsupport of his wife, was tantamount to taking a nolle prosequi, or accepting an acquittal, on this charge. S. v. Spain, ante, 571; S. v. Hunt, 128 N. C., 584, 38 S. E., 473.

New trial.

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

Related

State v. Hickey
346 S.E.2d 646 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
State v. Miller
158 S.E.2d 47 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
State v. . Wall
172 S.E. 216 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
State v. . Gregory
166 S.E. 387 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 S.E. 727, 201 N.C. 793, 1931 N.C. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brigman-nc-1931.