State v. . Cox

7 S.E.2d 473, 217 N.C. 177, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 203
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 28, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 S.E.2d 473 (State v. . Cox) 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. . Cox, 7 S.E.2d 473, 217 N.C. 177, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 203 (N.C. 1940).

Opinion

Devin, I.

Tbe only exception referred, to in defendant’s brief relates to tbe judge’s charge on tbe first count in tbe warrant. However, as there was a general verdict of guilty, and there was no exception to tbe judge’s instructions to tbe jury on tbe second count which charged sale of intoxicating liquor, any error in tbe trial judge’s statement of tbe law as to unlawful possession would become harmless. S. v. Holder, 133 N. C., 709, 45 S. E., 862; S. v. Coleman, 178 N. C., 757, 101 S. E., 261; S. v. Jarrett, 189 N. C., 516, 127 S. E., 590. There was no motion for judgment of nonsuit. Tbe appellant did not include in bis case on appeal tbe evidence adduced in tbe trial, but tbe statement of tbe evidence contained in the judge’s charge which was sent up, and to which no exception was taken, shows sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The other exception noted by the defendant during the trial was not referred to in his brief, and therefore is deemed abandoned. Rule 28; S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737; In re Beard, 202 N. C., 661, 163 S. E., 748.

In the trial we find

No error.

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

Related

State v. Clayton
111 S.E.2d 299 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 S.E.2d 473, 217 N.C. 177, 1940 N.C. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cox-nc-1940.