State v. Choplin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Choplin

150 S.E.2d 851, 268 N.C. 461, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1233

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 9, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 150 S.E.2d 851 (State v. Choplin) 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. Choplin, 150 S.E.2d 851, 268 N.C. 461, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1233 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant abandoned all his exceptions except the one to that portion of the judge’s charge which reads as follows: “That when a defendant goes upon the stand and testifies in his own behalf it becomes the duty of the jury to very closely scrutinize and examine the testimony of the defendant because he is a person interested in your verdict. He is the one who will be directly affected by the outcome of the case. So I instruct you, gentlemen of the jury, that in this case it is your duty to very closely examine and very carefully scrutinize the testimony of the defendant.” Immediately thereafter the trial judge further charged the jury: “If, however, after such close scrutinizing and examination you conclude that he told the truth about those matters as to which he testified, then it would be your duty to give to his testimony the same weight and credibility that you would give to that of any disinterested witness. . . .”

This Court in considering a very similar charge in the case of State v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E. 2d 606, held that such charge was not reversible error.

Reading the charge contextually and with the entire record, we find

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant abandoned all his exceptions except the one to that portion of the judge’s charge which reads as follows: “That when a defendant goes upon the stand and testifies in his own behalf it becomes the duty of the jury to very closely scrutinize and examine the testimony of the defendant because he is a person interested in your verdict. He is the one who will be directly affected by the outcome of the case. So I instruct you, gentlemen of the jury, that in this case it is your duty to very closely examine and very carefully scrutinize the testimony of the defendant.” Immediately thereafter the trial judge further charged the jury: “If, however, after such close scrutinizing and examination you conclude that he told the truth about those matters as to which he testified, then it would be your duty to give to his testimony the same weight and credibility that you would give to that of any disinterested witness. . . .”

This Court in considering a very similar charge in the case of State v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E. 2d 606, held that such charge was not reversible error.

Reading the charge contextually and with the entire record, we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E.2d 851, 268 N.C. 461, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-choplin-nc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack