State v. Jackson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Jackson

144 S.E.2d 584, 265 N.C. 558, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1044

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 3, 1965

Docket337

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 144 S.E.2d 584 (State v. Jackson) 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. Jackson, 144 S.E.2d 584, 265 N.C. 558, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1044 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR Gueiam.

On motion for judgment of nonsuit the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State and contradictions and discrepancies therein do not warrant the granting of the motion. State v. Thompson, 256 N.C. 593, 124 S.E. 2d 728; State v. Roop, 255 N.C. 607, 122 S.E. 2d 363; State v. Simpson, 244 N.C. 325, 93 S.E. 2d 425. There was ample evidence to support a finding of each element of the offense with which the defendant was charged and of which the jury found him guilty. There was no error in overruling the motion for judgment of nonsuit.

The trial court had discretionary power to permit the introduction of additional evidence after both parties had rested and arguments had been made to the jury. State v. Harding, 263 N.C. 799, 140 S.E. 2d 244. The limitation of the scope of subsequent arguments to the jury was also in the discretion of the trial court.

We have carefully examined the exceptions to the various rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence and the exceptions to the charge to the jury. We find no merit in any of them.

No error.

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

PeR Gueiam.

On motion for judgment of nonsuit the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State and contradictions and discrepancies therein do not warrant the granting of the motion. State v. Thompson, 256 N.C. 593, 124 S.E. 2d 728; State v. Roop, 255 N.C. 607, 122 S.E. 2d 363; State v. Simpson, 244 N.C. 325, 93 S.E. 2d 425. There was ample evidence to support a finding of each element of the offense with which the defendant was charged and of which the jury found him guilty. There was no error in overruling the motion for judgment of nonsuit.

The trial court had discretionary power to permit the introduction of additional evidence after both parties had rested and arguments had been made to the jury. State v. Harding, 263 N.C. 799, 140 S.E. 2d 244. The limitation of the scope of subsequent arguments to the jury was also in the discretion of the trial court.

We have carefully examined the exceptions to the various rulings of the court upon the admission of evidence and the exceptions to the charge to the jury. We find no merit in any of them.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 584, 265 N.C. 558, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack