State v. Dunlap

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Dunlap

150 S.E.2d 436, 268 N.C. 301, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1191

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 12, 1966

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 150 S.E.2d 436 (State v. Dunlap) 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. Dunlap, 150 S.E.2d 436, 268 N.C. 301, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1191 (N.C. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of manslaughter, and defendant’s motions of nonsuit were properly overruled. The statements of James Dunlap to the officers that his uncle shot him were incompetent as dying declarations because the State had failed to show that at the time of making them James Dunlap “had full apprehension of his danger (of death), . . .” Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, 2d Ed., § 146 (1963). Although erroneously admitted, the statements do not entitle defendant to a new trial since they were in nowise prejudicial to him. The identity of the man who shot deceased was never in doubt or dispute. Defendant himself testified that he shot James Dunlap. “The admission of testimony cannot be held prejudicial when defendant thereafter makes an admission of the same import.” 1 Strong, N. C. Index, Criminal Law § 162 (1962 Supplement).

[303]*303Defendant’s third assignment of error relates to a written statement signed by the witness Hunter, which the State offered in evidence to corroborate him. The statement was admitted over defendant’s objection, but the judge later struck it and told the jury not to consider it. This statement was competent for the purpose for which it was admitted. The court’s instruction to the jury not to consider it cannot be held to be prejudicial.

In the trial below, we find

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict of manslaughter, and defendant’s motions of nonsuit were properly overruled. The statements of James Dunlap to the officers that his uncle shot him were incompetent as dying declarations because the State had failed to show that at the time of making them James Dunlap “had full apprehension of his danger (of death), . . .” Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, 2d Ed., § 146 (1963). Although erroneously admitted, the statements do not entitle defendant to a new trial since they were in nowise prejudicial to him. The identity of the man who shot deceased was never in doubt or dispute. Defendant himself testified that he shot James Dunlap. “The admission of testimony cannot be held prejudicial when defendant thereafter makes an admission of the same import.” 1 Strong, N. C. Index, Criminal Law § 162 (1962 Supplement).

[303]*303Defendant’s third assignment of error relates to a written statement signed by the witness Hunter, which the State offered in evidence to corroborate him. The statement was admitted over defendant’s objection, but the judge later struck it and told the jury not to consider it. This statement was competent for the purpose for which it was admitted. The court’s instruction to the jury not to consider it cannot be held to be prejudicial.

In the trial below, we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 S.E.2d 436, 268 N.C. 301, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1191, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dunlap-nc-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack