State v. . Mitchell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Mitchell

153 S.E. 400, 198 N.C. 807, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 493

DecidedJune 6, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 153 S.E. 400 (State v. . Mitchell) 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. . Mitchell, 153 S.E. 400, 198 N.C. 807, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 493 (N.C. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee CubiaM.

There was no error on the trial of this action for which the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

The only assignments of error on his appeal to this Court are based on his exceptions to the exclusion of testimony sought to be elicited on the cross-examination of witnesses for the State who had testified that the general character of another witness for the State was good, and that the deceased did not have a general reputation as a dangerous man. This testimony was offered as evidence tending to impeach these witnesses, and not as evidence upon the issue to be determined by the jury. If it be conceded that the testimony was admissible for the restricted purpose for which it was offered, we cannot hold that its exclusion was reversible error.

The conflicting evidence tending to sustain the verdict, and also in support of defendant’s plea of self-defense, was submitted to the jury under a charge to which there were no exceptions. The judgment must be affirmed. We find

No error.

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

Pee CubiaM.

There was no error on the trial of this action for which the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

The only assignments of error on his appeal to this Court are based on his exceptions to the exclusion of testimony sought to be elicited on the cross-examination of witnesses for the State who had testified that the general character of another witness for the State was good, and that the deceased did not have a general reputation as a dangerous man. This testimony was offered as evidence tending to impeach these witnesses, and not as evidence upon the issue to be determined by the jury. If it be conceded that the testimony was admissible for the restricted purpose for which it was offered, we cannot hold that its exclusion was reversible error.

The conflicting evidence tending to sustain the verdict, and also in support of defendant’s plea of self-defense, was submitted to the jury under a charge to which there were no exceptions. The judgment must be affirmed. We find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

153 S.E. 400, 198 N.C. 807, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mitchell-nc-1930.