State v. . Huggins

35 S.E. 606, 126 N.C. 1055, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 358
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 10, 1900
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 35 S.E. 606 (State v. . Huggins) 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. . Huggins, 35 S.E. 606, 126 N.C. 1055, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 358 (N.C. 1900).

Opinion

Clark, J.

The prisoners, Johnson and Pittman, appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree. The only question presented is as to whether there was any evidence as to them to go to the jury. The Judge ordered the evidence to be set up as' a part of the case on appeal, but by the almost criminal carelessness of some one, it has been, lost, and the county of Lenoir will be put to the expense of another trial, which must be granted. Ritter v. Grimm, 114 N. C., 373; Clemmons v. Archbell, 107 N. C., 653; State v. Parks, Id., 821; Owens v. Paxton, 106 N. C., 480. When court papers are thus lost the matter should, in every instance, be rigidly investigated, and the responsibility fixed.

The case on appeal does not clearly show that the exception that there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury was taken before verdict. If it was not, the exception could not be considered, and the failure to send up the evidence would be immaterial, so far as the appeal is concerned. This has been well settled. State v. Harris, 120 N. C., 577, and numerous cases there cited; State v. Wilson, 121 N. C., 650. Put the Attorney-General, from the nature of this case, and following the precedent set by his predecessor in State v. Wilcox, 118 N. C., 1131, consents that the exception may be treated as having been made before verdict.

New trial.

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

Related

State v. Sanders
185 S.E.2d 137 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Gaston
73 S.E.2d 311 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
Mincey v. Goode Construction Co.
132 S.E. 462 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1926)
State v. Ricks
180 P. 257 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1919)
Denson v. Stanley
84 So. 770 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1918)
Turner v. Southern Gas Improvement Co.
87 S.E. 970 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
Sanders v. Wise
83 S.E. 77 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1914)
State v. Salisbury Ice & Fuel Co.
81 S.E. 956 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
State v. . Leak
72 S.E. 567 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
State v. . Houston
71 S.E. 65 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1911)
State v. Lilliston.
54 S.E. 427 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1906)
State v. Williams.
40 S.E. 94 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1901)
State v. . Gooch
94 N.C. 987 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)
State v. . Starnes
94 N.C. 972 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
35 S.E. 606, 126 N.C. 1055, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-huggins-nc-1900.