State v. Foster

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Foster

219 S.E.2d 265, 27 N.C. App. 409, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1868

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 5, 1975

DocketNo. 7526SC400

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 219 S.E.2d 265 (State v. Foster) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Foster, 219 S.E.2d 265, 27 N.C. App. 409, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1868 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

All of defendant’s assignments of error are directed against the court’s charge to the jury. Defendant contends that the judge emphasized the State’s evidence and minimized that for defendant, erroneously instructed the jury as a matter of law that all of defendant’s witnesses were interested witnesses and made misstatements of material facts not shown in the evidence.

We conclude that defendant’s exceptions are we’l taken. The court appears to have given a fairly complete recitation of the testimony of each of the witnesses for the State. About the only reference to the direct testimony of defendant and his six other witnesses was to state that defendant contends he was elsewhere at the time of the robbery. The jury could also fairly conclude from his charge that the judge had determined that all of defendant’s witnesses were interested witnesses, a determination not warranted by the record.

The jury was also told that, on cross-examination, defendant had said that he had given a detective “a statement implicating himself in this crime of robbery.” This instruction is not supported by any view of the evidence in the record before us. Defendant denied any knowledge or involvement in the robbery. The prejudice inherent in the misstatement that defendant had confessed is apparent. Since there must be a new trial we need not discuss the remaining exceptions to the charge.

New trial.

Judges Morris and Clark concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

All of defendant’s assignments of error are directed against the court’s charge to the jury. Defendant contends that the judge emphasized the State’s evidence and minimized that for defendant, erroneously instructed the jury as a matter of law that all of defendant’s witnesses were interested witnesses and made misstatements of material facts not shown in the evidence.

We conclude that defendant’s exceptions are we’l taken. The court appears to have given a fairly complete recitation of the testimony of each of the witnesses for the State. About the only reference to the direct testimony of defendant and his six other witnesses was to state that defendant contends he was elsewhere at the time of the robbery. The jury could also fairly conclude from his charge that the judge had determined that all of defendant’s witnesses were interested witnesses, a determination not warranted by the record.

The jury was also told that, on cross-examination, defendant had said that he had given a detective “a statement implicating himself in this crime of robbery.” This instruction is not supported by any view of the evidence in the record before us. Defendant denied any knowledge or involvement in the robbery. The prejudice inherent in the misstatement that defendant had confessed is apparent. Since there must be a new trial we need not discuss the remaining exceptions to the charge.

New trial.

Judges Morris and Clark concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 S.E.2d 265, 27 N.C. App. 409, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foster-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack