State v. Holder
113 S.E.2d 15, 252 N.C. 121, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 394
Opinion
The defendant asked for a new trial solely upon the ground that the court committed error in recapitulating the defendant’s evidence and contentions and that he was prejudiced by the reference to the treatment of alcoholism.
Inadvertence in stating the contentions or in recapitulating the evidence must be called to the attention of the court in time for correction. After verdict the objection' comes too late. State v. Adams, 245 N.C. 344, 95 S.E. 2d 902.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Holder, 113 S.E.2d 15, 252 N.C. 121, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 394 (N.C. 1960).
113 S.E.2d 15 (State v. Holder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Pagano
242 S.E.2d 825 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1978)
State v. Hunt
222 S.E.2d 234 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
State v. McAllister
214 S.E.2d 75 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
State v. Black
196 S.E.2d 225 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Virgil
172 S.E.2d 28 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1970)
State v. Goines
160 S.E.2d 469 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Cornelius
144 S.E.2d 203 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State v. Case
116 S.E.2d 429 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1960)