State v. . Eliason

91 N.C. 564

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: October 5, 1884
• Status: Published

Opinion

Ashe, J.

We are unable to see from the statement of the case, or from anything occurring upon the hearing of the case before us, what was the ground of the exception taken to the charge of the court.. It was the rule before The Code effected a change in the practice (§ 412-3), for the defendant to state his exceptions in writing, before the case was finally submitted by the judge’s charge to the jury. And the only change made by The Code is, that the exceptions need not be taken at the time or in writing, and may be taken at the hearing in this court. But even in that case, the defendant is not relieved from the necessity of making his exceptions and stating in them some error to his prejudice. Terry v. Railroad ante 236; and State v. Cowan, 7 Ired., 239, where it is held that a defendant, in his exceptions, must show some error to his prejudice, otherwise the court will not set aside the verdict of a jury.

The supreme court will not look into the testimony to ’ ascertain if the jury found a defendant guilty without sufficient testimony. A motion for a new trial on- this ground is addressed to the discretion of the judge below. State v. Gallimore, 7 Ired., 147.

In this case, the evidence offered.by the state was entirely circumstantial, and the law laid down by His Honor in his charge to the jury was directly applicable to such a case.

It has been held that on the trial of an indictmént under the statute (former statute,) for fornication and adultery, “it is not necessary to show by direct proof the actual bedding and cohabiting : it is sufficient to show circumstances from which the jury may reasonably infer the guilt of the parties.” State v. Poteet, 8 Ired., 23.

■ There is no error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Iredell county, that the case may be proceeded with to judgment.

No error. Affirmed.