State v. . Geurukus

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Geurukus

143 S.E. 208, 195 N.C. 642, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 168

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 16, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 143 S.E. 208 (State v. . Geurukus) 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. . Geurukus, 143 S.E. 208, 195 N.C. 642, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 168 (N.C. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted, under a bill of indictment, charging him with criminal abortion, an offense against C. S., 4226. The State’s evidence made out all the material elements of the offense and was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

The only assignment of error relied on by defendant in this Court is expressed in • defendant’s brief, as follows: “Question involved — court’s erroneous instruction as to testimony of John Henry Robinson, who didn’t testify.” While recapitulating the evidence of the State, the court said: “An old colored man stated that he got some medicine for this defendant. You will recollect what he stated about it.” As a matter of fact, this old colored man was not put upon the stand, but there was direct evidence that he did procure the medicine at the instigation of the defendant and the prosecuting witness-, the defendant, however, denying that he had anything to do with it. This mistake, lapsus linguae, should have been corrected at the time that the court made it. It is a mere inadvertent slip which occurred in stating the evidence, which frequently occurs. In order that an exception should be sustained in this Court for such inadvertence, it must be brought to the attention of the court below at the time it is made. Consequently, it cannot be relied upon here. Defendant’s counsel in his brief states that he was not in the courthouse at the time that this was done. This cannot in any way affect the rule so often adhered to in this Court. The court below subsequently, however, told the jury: “You will recollect all of the evidence, gentlemen. I will not have the stenographer read all of her notes, but if you disagree, I will have the stenographer read her notes, or a part of them, of any witness who has been examined. . . . While her notes will not bind you, they will refresh your memory.” This, of course, puts the question of who testified, and what they testified to, up to the jury. S. v. Sinodis, 189 N. C., 565; S. v. Johnson, 193 N. C., 701.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant was convicted, under a bill of indictment, charging him with criminal abortion, an offense against C. S., 4226. The State’s evidence made out all the material elements of the offense and was sufficient to be submitted to the jury.

The only assignment of error relied on by defendant in this Court is expressed in • defendant’s brief, as follows: “Question involved — court’s erroneous instruction as to testimony of John Henry Robinson, who didn’t testify.” While recapitulating the evidence of the State, the court said: “An old colored man stated that he got some medicine for this defendant. You will recollect what he stated about it.” As a matter of fact, this old colored man was not put upon the stand, but there was direct evidence that he did procure the medicine at the instigation of the defendant and the prosecuting witness-, the defendant, however, denying that he had anything to do with it. This mistake, lapsus linguae, should have been corrected at the time that the court made it. It is a mere inadvertent slip which occurred in stating the evidence, which frequently occurs. In order that an exception should be sustained in this Court for such inadvertence, it must be brought to the attention of the court below at the time it is made. Consequently, it cannot be relied upon here. Defendant’s counsel in his brief states that he was not in the courthouse at the time that this was done. This cannot in any way affect the rule so often adhered to in this Court. The court below subsequently, however, told the jury: “You will recollect all of the evidence, gentlemen. I will not have the stenographer read all of her notes, but if you disagree, I will have the stenographer read her notes, or a part of them, of any witness who has been examined. . . . While her notes will not bind you, they will refresh your memory.” This, of course, puts the question of who testified, and what they testified to, up to the jury. S. v. Sinodis, 189 N. C., 565; S. v. Johnson, 193 N. C., 701.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 S.E. 208, 195 N.C. 642, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-geurukus-nc-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack