State v. . Deal

161 S.E. 925, 202 N.C. 821, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 241

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: January 8, 1932
• Status: Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

At the close of the State’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence, the defendant made motions to dismiss the action or for judgment of nonsuit. C. S., 4643. These motions were overruled by the court below, and in this we can see no error.

The exception and assignment pf error as to the alleged expression of opinion by the court below, if error, we cannot see how it was prejudicial. The exceptions and assignments of error as to the charge cannot be sustained. The court below, from a careful reading of the charge, taking the same as a whole, gave the law applicable to the facts. Gave the contentions of both the State and defendant fairly and accurately. We see no new or novel principle of law involved in the ease.

Evidence on tbe part of tbe State as to tbe general reputation of tbe State’s witness, Carl Leonbardt, and defendant and bis witness, Mrs. Ida Brittain, was as follows:

“Ernest Whisnant testified to tbe good character of Carl Leonbardt, and tbe bad character of Dick Deal and Mrs. Ida Brittain. Chief Duck-worth testified to tbe good character of Carl Leonbardt, and tbe bad character of Dick Deal for liquor, and tbe general bad character of tbe defendant Dick Deal and Mrs. Ida Brittain. C. H. Ollis, police officer, testified to tbe general good character of tbe State’s witness, Carl Leon-bardt, and tbe general bad character of tbe defendant Dick Deal and Mrs. Ida Brittain.”

It was mainly a question of fact to be determined by tbe jury and they have found for tbe State. In law we can find

No error.