State v. . Bynum

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Bynum

108 S.E. 721, 182 N.C. 821, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 344

DecidedOctober 26, 1921

StatusPublished

This text of 108 S.E. 721 (State v. . Bynum) 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. . Bynum, 108 S.E. 721, 182 N.C. 821, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 344 (N.C. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Hoee, J.

Tbe bill of indictment, tbe verdict, and judgment are formally correct, and tbe only exception to tbe validity of tbe trial being on a matter in the sound discretion of tbe court, we must affirm tbe judgment. Tbe defendant was without tbe benefit of counsel in tbe court below, and for tbe reasons stated, we are not at liberty to consider tbe positions so forcibly urged in bis behalf in tbe argument here.

On tbe record, while it was entirely proper to submit tbe case to tbe jury, we find very little in tbe testimony to justify a conviction of willful and corrupt perjury, and we deem it no impropriety to suggest that tbe facts as now presented to us would seem to justify a petition for executive clemency. We are confirmed in tbe view by tbe further fact that tbe careful, considerate, and able judge who tried tbe cause has imposed tbe minimum punishment allowed by tbe law for an offense of this kind.

No error.

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

Hoee, J.

Tbe bill of indictment, tbe verdict, and judgment are formally correct, and tbe only exception to tbe validity of tbe trial being on a matter in the sound discretion of tbe court, we must affirm tbe judgment. Tbe defendant was without tbe benefit of counsel in tbe court below, and for tbe reasons stated, we are not at liberty to consider tbe positions so forcibly urged in bis behalf in tbe argument here.

On tbe record, while it was entirely proper to submit tbe case to tbe jury, we find very little in tbe testimony to justify a conviction of willful and corrupt perjury, and we deem it no impropriety to suggest that tbe facts as now presented to us would seem to justify a petition for executive clemency. We are confirmed in tbe view by tbe further fact that tbe careful, considerate, and able judge who tried tbe cause has imposed tbe minimum punishment allowed by tbe law for an offense of this kind.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E. 721, 182 N.C. 821, 1921 N.C. LEXIS 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bynum-nc-1921.