State v. Holway

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Holway

174 S.E.2d 54, 8 N.C. App. 340, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1562

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 27, 1970

DocketNo. 7020SC193

StatusPublished

This text of 174 S.E.2d 54 (State v. Holway) 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. Holway, 174 S.E.2d 54, 8 N.C. App. 340, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1562 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

BeocK, J.

Defendant assigns as error four brief portions of the judge’s charge to the jury. In one of these the judge was explaining to the jury the nature of the charges against defendant. In the other three the judge was recapitulating the contentions of the parties.

At the beginning of the charge, and again at the end of the charge, the judge clearly and accurately defined the elements of the offense with which defendant was charged. It seems the jury was accurately and adequately apprised of the applicable legal principles.

Although the judge is not required to state or recapitulate the contentions of the parties, it is permissible for him to do so. State v. Douglas, 268 N.C. 267, 150 S.E. 2d 412; State v. Watson, 1 N.C. App. 250, 161 S.E. 2d 159. And although the trial judge in this case may have detailed the contentions more than good practice should dictate, nevertheless we find no prejudicial misstatement.

No error.

Beitt and HedeicK, JJ., concur.

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