State v. Buck

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Buck

74 S.E.2d 925, 237 N.C. 434, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 525

DecidedMarch 25, 1953

StatusPublished

This text of 74 S.E.2d 925 (State v. Buck) 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. Buck, 74 S.E.2d 925, 237 N.C. 434, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 525 (N.C. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

The several assignments of error brought forward in defendant’s appeal, based upon exceptions noted to ruling of the court during the trial, have been duly considered and found to be without substantial merit.

[435]*435The defendant assigned error in tbe charge of the court in that, in referring to evidence of good character of the defendant the court charged that the jury had the “right to consider” this evidence in passing upon his guilt or innocence, and that the jury also “ought to consider it” as corroborative evidence. It was argued that a distinction was thus made with respect to the consideration to be given character evidence on the question of guilt or innocence, and that to be given it as corroborative.

The portion of the charge to which exception was noted was as follows :

“He (defendant) has offered in evidence the good character of him and his son. That is to be considered first upon the question of guilt or innocence. A man charged with crime has the right to show that he is a man of good character. The jury has the right to consider that in passing upon the guilt or innocence. You also ought to consider it as corroborative evidence.”

We think it sufficiently appears that the jury was given to understand that it was their duty to consider character evidence in both aspects. The court charged this evidence “is to be considered” by the jury both as substantive and corroborative evidence. We.think no harm has resulted to the defendant from the manner in which this instruction was stated. It was said in S. v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130, 71 S.E. 2d 924, that “the use of the word ‘may’ instead of ‘should’ in this excerpt from the charge is not prejudicial.” See also S. v. Moore, 185 N.C. 637, 116 S.E. 161.

There was plenary evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty of assault with deadly weapon. The State’s witness was shot in the face from a blast from a shotgun.

In the trial we find

No error.

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

PeR Curiam.

The several assignments of error brought forward in defendant’s appeal, based upon exceptions noted to ruling of the court during the trial, have been duly considered and found to be without substantial merit.

[435]*435The defendant assigned error in tbe charge of the court in that, in referring to evidence of good character of the defendant the court charged that the jury had the “right to consider” this evidence in passing upon his guilt or innocence, and that the jury also “ought to consider it” as corroborative evidence. It was argued that a distinction was thus made with respect to the consideration to be given character evidence on the question of guilt or innocence, and that to be given it as corroborative.

The portion of the charge to which exception was noted was as follows :

“He (defendant) has offered in evidence the good character of him and his son. That is to be considered first upon the question of guilt or innocence. A man charged with crime has the right to show that he is a man of good character. The jury has the right to consider that in passing upon the guilt or innocence. You also ought to consider it as corroborative evidence.”

We think it sufficiently appears that the jury was given to understand that it was their duty to consider character evidence in both aspects. The court charged this evidence “is to be considered” by the jury both as substantive and corroborative evidence. We.think no harm has resulted to the defendant from the manner in which this instruction was stated. It was said in S. v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130, 71 S.E. 2d 924, that “the use of the word ‘may’ instead of ‘should’ in this excerpt from the charge is not prejudicial.” See also S. v. Moore, 185 N.C. 637, 116 S.E. 161.

There was plenary evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty of assault with deadly weapon. The State’s witness was shot in the face from a blast from a shotgun.

In the trial we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 S.E.2d 925, 237 N.C. 434, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buck-nc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack