State v. Howell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Howell

135 S.E.2d 625, 261 N.C. 657, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 537

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 15, 1964

Docket439

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 135 S.E.2d 625 (State v. Howell) 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. Howell, 135 S.E.2d 625, 261 N.C. 657, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 537 (N.C. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

PerR Curiam.

The defendant assigns as error the failure of the court below to sustain his motion for judgment as of nonsuit made at the close of the State’s evidence and not renewed at the close of all the evidence.

The defendant testified in his own behalf and introduced other evidence.

The failure of the defendant to renew his motion at the close of all the evidence constituted a waiver of his right to insist upon his first motion and it is not subject to review in this Court. G.S. 15-173; S. v. Hayes, 187 N.C. 490, 122 S.E. 13; S. v. Chapman, 221 N.C. 157, 19 S.E. 2d 250; S. v. Epps, 223 N.C. 741, 28 S.E. 2d 219; S. v. Leggett, 255 N.C. 358, 121 S.E. 2d 533. However, the State’s evidence adduced in the trial below was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Furthermore, the defendant’s own testimony was sufficient to support the verdict.

The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court below to sustain his motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the name of the defendant did not appear in the affidavit upon which the warrant of arrest was issued and which is partly in these words: “These are therefore to command you forthwith to apprehend the said William P. Howell * * * to answer the above charge set forth in the affidavit, and be dealt with according to law." This assignment of error is overruled on authority of S. v. Poythress, 174 N.C. 809, 93 S.E. 919, and S. v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E. 2d 133.

The rulings of the court below from which appeal was taken are

Affirmed.

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

PerR Curiam.

The defendant assigns as error the failure of the court below to sustain his motion for judgment as of nonsuit made at the close of the State’s evidence and not renewed at the close of all the evidence.

The defendant testified in his own behalf and introduced other evidence.

The failure of the defendant to renew his motion at the close of all the evidence constituted a waiver of his right to insist upon his first motion and it is not subject to review in this Court. G.S. 15-173; S. v. Hayes, 187 N.C. 490, 122 S.E. 13; S. v. Chapman, 221 N.C. 157, 19 S.E. 2d 250; S. v. Epps, 223 N.C. 741, 28 S.E. 2d 219; S. v. Leggett, 255 N.C. 358, 121 S.E. 2d 533. However, the State’s evidence adduced in the trial below was sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Furthermore, the defendant’s own testimony was sufficient to support the verdict.

The defendant assigns as error the refusal of the court below to sustain his motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the name of the defendant did not appear in the affidavit upon which the warrant of arrest was issued and which is partly in these words: “These are therefore to command you forthwith to apprehend the said William P. Howell * * * to answer the above charge set forth in the affidavit, and be dealt with according to law." This assignment of error is overruled on authority of S. v. Poythress, 174 N.C. 809, 93 S.E. 919, and S. v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E. 2d 133.

The rulings of the court below from which appeal was taken are

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 S.E.2d 625, 261 N.C. 657, 1964 N.C. LEXIS 537, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-howell-nc-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack