Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/State v. Isom

State v. Isom

90 S.E.2d 237, 243 N.C. 164, 69 A.L.R. 2d 358, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 544
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 23, 1955
Docket509
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 90 S.E.2d 237 (State v. Isom) 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. Isom, 90 S.E.2d 237, 243 N.C. 164, 69 A.L.R. 2d 358, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 544 (N.C. 1955).

Opinion

Bobbitt, J.

The evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to survive defendant’s motion for nonsuit. Hence, assignment of error directed to the court’s ruling in this respect cannot be sustained.

Assignment of error #7 must be sustained, and a new trial granted, notwithstanding it seems improbable that the record reflects correctly *166 the instructions given by the presiding judge. But, as shown in the record, the instruction was not responsive to the jury’s inquiry and was highly prejudicial. Too, the jury’s inquiry remained unanswered.

The obvious purpose of the cross-examination was to emphasize rather than to minimize the extent of defendant’s intoxication. The inference is permissible that defendant did not testify because, on account of extreme intoxication, he had no recollection of any conversation with the officers. In short, the defense seems to have been based on the contention that no weight should be given a statement attributed to defendant made under the circumstances disclosed. The testimony, quoted above, afforded a factual basis for such contention.

Ordinarily, intoxication of an accused person does not render inadmissible his confession of facts tending to incriminate him. But the extent of his intoxication when the confession was made is relevant; and the weight, if any, to be given a confession under the circumstances disclosed is exclusively for determination by the jury. 20 Am. Jur., Evidence sec. 526; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law sec. 828; Annotation: 74 A.L.R. 1102 et seq., and supplemental decisions. See, S. v. Bryan, 74 N.C. 351. It would seem that the jury was entitled to an instruction consonant with this generally accepted rule.

New trial.

HiggiNS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

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

Related

State v. Williams
715 S.E.2d 553 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
State v. Atkinson
251 S.E.2d 677 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1979)
Lonquest v. State
495 P.2d 575 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1972)
State v. Beasley
179 S.E.2d 820 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Warner
237 A.2d 150 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1967)
People v. Schompert
226 N.E.2d 305 (New York Court of Appeals, 1967)
Peters v. Commonwealth
403 S.W.2d 686 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1966)
State v. Logner
145 S.E.2d 867 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
State v. Painter
144 S.E.2d 6 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State v. Graham
141 S.E.2d 275 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State v. Stephens
136 S.E.2d 209 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1964)
State v. Whittemore
122 S.E.2d 396 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1961)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 S.E.2d 237, 243 N.C. 164, 69 A.L.R. 2d 358, 1955 N.C. LEXIS 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-isom-nc-1955.