State v. Linder

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Linder

213 S.E.2d 424, 25 N.C. App. 474, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2296

Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided April 16, 1975·No. No. 7420SC1080·Published

Opinion

CLARK, Judge.

The only assignment of error brought forward is that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the meaning of the terms “corroboration” and “substantive evidence”. However, in the absence of a request, the trial court is not required to define these terms, and since there was no request here we discern no prejudice to the defendant. State v. Mitchell, 7 N.C. App. 49, 171 S.E. 2d 31 (1969) and State v. Hardee, 6 N.C. App. 147, 169 S.E. 2d 533 (1969). Having further reviewed the face of the record for errors, we find none.

No error.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

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

CLARK, Judge.

The only assignment of error brought forward is that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the meaning of the terms “corroboration” and “substantive evidence”. However, in the absence of a request, the trial court is not required to define these terms, and since there was no request here we discern no prejudice to the defendant. State v. Mitchell, 7 N.C. App. 49, 171 S.E. 2d 31 (1969) and State v. Hardee, 6 N.C. App. 147, 169 S.E. 2d 533 (1969). Having further reviewed the face of the record for errors, we find none.

No error.

Judges Parker and Hedrick concur.

State v. Linder, 213 S.E.2d 424, 25 N.C. App. 474, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2296 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

213 S.E.2d 424 (State v. Linder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related