State v. . Bryant

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Bryant

46 S.E.2d 847, 228 N.C. 641, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 306

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 24, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 46 S.E.2d 847 (State v. . Bryant) 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. . Bryant, 46 S.E.2d 847, 228 N.C. 641, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 306 (N.C. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

Devin, J.

The State’s evidence, which seems to have been accepted by the jury, was sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. S. v. Houpe, 207 N. C., 377, 177 S. E., 20; S. v. Swindell, 189 N. C., 151, *643 126 S. E., 417. Tbe defendant, however, assigns error in the instruction given by the trial judge to the jury in response to an inquiry from one of the jurors. The juror asked what the law considered “the time limit of gestation,” and the court replied that.there was no law about it, so far as the court knew, and that there had been no medical or other evidence as to the period of gestation.^ But shortly afterwards the court recalled the jury and instructed them as follows: “In answer to your question asked me just now as to whether there is any law about the time of pregnancy, the court instructs you that our Supreme Court in S. v. Forte, 222 N. C., 531 (539), 23 S. E. (2d), 842, said: 'And it is a matter of common knowledge that the term of pregnancy is ten lunar months, or 280 days.’ ” We think in this instance the court was correcting an inadvertence and that the jury was neither confused nor misled. No prejudicial error is made to appear.

The defendant’s request after the close of the testimony that the State’s witness be examined by a physician to ascertain the status of the expected child was addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon under the circumstances of the case will not be held for error. Moyle v. Hopkins, 222 N. C., 33, 21 S. E. (2d), 826.

The issue before the court and jury was whether the defendant committed the act as charged in the bill. Time was not of the essence. The date was not capitally important. S. v. Williams, 219 N. C., 365, 135 S. E. (2d), 617; S. v. Trippe, 222 N. C., 600, 24 S. E. (2d), 340; S. v. Baxley, 223 N. C., 210, 25 S. E. (2d), 621. The question as to the period of gestation was directed merely to the accuracy of the testimony of the State’s witness as to the date of the commission of the offense charged, rather than as determinative' of the fact.

The defendant’s exception to the judge’s charge to the jury in respect to his statement of the contentions of the defendant is without merit. S. v. Jessup, 219 N. C., 620, 14 S. E. (2d), 668.

In the trial we find

No error.

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

Devin, J.

The State’s evidence, which seems to have been accepted by the jury, was sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. S. v. Houpe, 207 N. C., 377, 177 S. E., 20; S. v. Swindell, 189 N. C., 151, *643 126 S. E., 417. Tbe defendant, however, assigns error in the instruction given by the trial judge to the jury in response to an inquiry from one of the jurors. The juror asked what the law considered “the time limit of gestation,” and the court replied that.there was no law about it, so far as the court knew, and that there had been no medical or other evidence as to the period of gestation.^ But shortly afterwards the court recalled the jury and instructed them as follows: “In answer to your question asked me just now as to whether there is any law about the time of pregnancy, the court instructs you that our Supreme Court in S. v. Forte, 222 N. C., 531 (539), 23 S. E. (2d), 842, said: 'And it is a matter of common knowledge that the term of pregnancy is ten lunar months, or 280 days.’ ” We think in this instance the court was correcting an inadvertence and that the jury was neither confused nor misled. No prejudicial error is made to appear.

The defendant’s request after the close of the testimony that the State’s witness be examined by a physician to ascertain the status of the expected child was addressed to the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon under the circumstances of the case will not be held for error. Moyle v. Hopkins, 222 N. C., 33, 21 S. E. (2d), 826.

The issue before the court and jury was whether the defendant committed the act as charged in the bill. Time was not of the essence. The date was not capitally important. S. v. Williams, 219 N. C., 365, 135 S. E. (2d), 617; S. v. Trippe, 222 N. C., 600, 24 S. E. (2d), 340; S. v. Baxley, 223 N. C., 210, 25 S. E. (2d), 621. The question as to the period of gestation was directed merely to the accuracy of the testimony of the State’s witness as to the date of the commission of the offense charged, rather than as determinative' of the fact.

The defendant’s exception to the judge’s charge to the jury in respect to his statement of the contentions of the defendant is without merit. S. v. Jessup, 219 N. C., 620, 14 S. E. (2d), 668.

In the trial we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 S.E.2d 847, 228 N.C. 641, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bryant-nc-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack