State v. Leggett
Opinion
Defendant offered evidence. Hence, as to defendant’s motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit, the only question is whether *359 the court erred in the denial of the motion made by defendant at the close of all the evidence. G.S. 15-173.
The elements of the crime defined in G.S. 14-180 and the evidence required to support a conviction therefor are fully stated in S. v. Smith, 223 N.C. 199, 25 S.E. 2d 619, and cases cited. Here, the prosecutrix testified as to each essential element; and, as to each essential element, there was independent supporting evidence. Hence, defendant’s said motion was properly denied.
As to defendant’s assignments of error directed to the court’s instructions, consideration thereof does not disclose error of such prejudicial nature as to justify a new trial.
We deem it unnecessary and inappropriate to set forth the evidence. Suffice to say, while defendant’s testimony, in material respects, was in conflict with that offered by the State, the factual issues were properly submitted to the jury and were resolved by the jury adversely to defendant.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
121 S.E.2d 533 (State v. Leggett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.