State v. Harding

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Harding

140 S.E.2d 244, 263 N.C. 799, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1375

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 24, 1965

Docket84

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 140 S.E.2d 244 (State v. Harding) 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. Harding, 140 S.E.2d 244, 263 N.C. 799, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1375 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER Cueiam.

Defendant’s motions for nonsuit were properly overruled. Evidence of the corpus delicti is full and direct. Defendant is identified as the perpetrator of the felonies. The testimony of the pros-ecutrix is corroborated in every detail. No purpose can be served here in recounting the evidence.

After the solicitor had commenced his argument to the jury, the judge, over the objection of defendant, permitted the State to reopen the evidence and take the testimony of a witness, William McElrath, who had been tardily located and brought into the courtroom, and whose name had been frequently mentioned by other witnesses. He was cross-examined by defendant’s counsel, and defendant was permitted to introduce evidence in rebuttal. The judge committed no error in permitting McElrath to testify. “The trial court has discretionary power to permit the introduction of additional evidence after both parties have rested, even after the argument has begun. But the opposing party should be given opportunity to introduce evidence in rebuttal.” 1 Strong: N. C. Index, Criminal Law, § 92, p. 760, and cases cited.

No error.

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

PER Cueiam.

Defendant’s motions for nonsuit were properly overruled. Evidence of the corpus delicti is full and direct. Defendant is identified as the perpetrator of the felonies. The testimony of the pros-ecutrix is corroborated in every detail. No purpose can be served here in recounting the evidence.

After the solicitor had commenced his argument to the jury, the judge, over the objection of defendant, permitted the State to reopen the evidence and take the testimony of a witness, William McElrath, who had been tardily located and brought into the courtroom, and whose name had been frequently mentioned by other witnesses. He was cross-examined by defendant’s counsel, and defendant was permitted to introduce evidence in rebuttal. The judge committed no error in permitting McElrath to testify. “The trial court has discretionary power to permit the introduction of additional evidence after both parties have rested, even after the argument has begun. But the opposing party should be given opportunity to introduce evidence in rebuttal.” 1 Strong: N. C. Index, Criminal Law, § 92, p. 760, and cases cited.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 S.E.2d 244, 263 N.C. 799, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-harding-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack