State v. Foy

63 S.E.2d 170, 233 N.C. 228, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 557
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 2, 1951
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 63 S.E.2d 170 (State v. Foy) 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. Foy, 63 S.E.2d 170, 233 N.C. 228, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 557 (N.C. 1951).

Opinion

PeR Curiam.

The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to sustain his motion for judgment as of nonsuit. We concur in the ruling below as to both counts in the bill of indictment.

The defendant also challenges the validity of the verdict on the second count, on the ground that the jury found him “guilty of selling ‘unlawful liquors’ as charged in the bill of indictment,” instead of finding him guilty of selling “intoxicating liquors” as charged in the bill of indictment. We consider the exception without merit; but, if it were otherwise, the judgment should be upheld on this record.

The exception to the failure of the court below to sustain the defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit is the sole exception in the record bearing on the first count, and that exception having been disposed of adversely to the defendant, and the sentence imposed being within the limit prescribed by statute for such offense, the judgment will be upheld. S. v. Graham, 224 N.C. 347, 30 S.E. 2d 151, and cited cases. Therefore the judgment entered below is

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Scoggin
72 S.E.2d 97 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
State v. Murphy
70 S.E.2d 498 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 S.E.2d 170, 233 N.C. 228, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-foy-nc-1951.