State v. Hughes

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Hughes

97 S.E.2d 862, 246 N.C. 219, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 397

DecidedMay 8, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 97 S.E.2d 862 (State v. Hughes) 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. Hughes, 97 S.E.2d 862, 246 N.C. 219, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 397 (N.C. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per CüRIam.

In this Court defendant appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence offered upon trial in Superior Court to take the case to the jury on the charge made, and to support the verdict rendered. Assignment III relating to denial of motions for judgment as of nonsuit is not discussed in brief.

And while the record of case on appeal shows that defendant took many exceptions to questions asked, and remarks made by the presiding, judge in the course of the trial, it is apparent that neither the questions nor the remarks cast any reflection upon defendant, or deprived him of fair representation in the trial. It is clear that the court was trying to expedite in normal way a trial pervaded with dilatoriness. The manner in which the trial was conducted fails to show prejudicial error in any respect.

Moreover, a contextual reading of the charge indicates that the case was presented to the jury in adequate and understandable language, free from harmful error.

Hence in the judgment from which appeal is taken there is

No error.

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

Per CüRIam.

In this Court defendant appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence offered upon trial in Superior Court to take the case to the jury on the charge made, and to support the verdict rendered. Assignment III relating to denial of motions for judgment as of nonsuit is not discussed in brief.

And while the record of case on appeal shows that defendant took many exceptions to questions asked, and remarks made by the presiding, judge in the course of the trial, it is apparent that neither the questions nor the remarks cast any reflection upon defendant, or deprived him of fair representation in the trial. It is clear that the court was trying to expedite in normal way a trial pervaded with dilatoriness. The manner in which the trial was conducted fails to show prejudicial error in any respect.

Moreover, a contextual reading of the charge indicates that the case was presented to the jury in adequate and understandable language, free from harmful error.

Hence in the judgment from which appeal is taken there is

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

97 S.E.2d 862, 246 N.C. 219, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 397, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hughes-nc-1957.