State v. Mohrmann

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Mohrmann

144 S.E.2d 645, 265 N.C. 594, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1060

DecidedNovember 10, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.E.2d 645 (State v. Mohrmann) 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. Mohrmann, 144 S.E.2d 645, 265 N.C. 594, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1060 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

There was ample evidence to support the verdict in respect of the charge alleged in each of the two warrants. Hence, the assignments of error directed to the court’s denial of defendant’s motions for judgments as of nonsuit are without merit.

Defendant’s other assignments of error do not comply with Rules 19(3) and 21. See Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783, et. seq. “We have stated again and again that the error relied upon should be definitely and clearly presented, and the Court not compelled to go beyond the assignment of error itself to learn what the question is.” Brown v. Brown, 264 N.C. 485, 488, 141 S.E. 2d [595]*595875. Nor does defendant’s brief comply with Rule 28. See Cudworth v. Insurance Co., 243 N.C. 584, 585, 91 S.E. 2d 580. Notwithstanding, we have examined the general arguments set forth in defendant’s brief with reference to the assignments of error he attempts to bring forward. Suffice to say, such general arguments do not disclose prejudicial error.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

There was ample evidence to support the verdict in respect of the charge alleged in each of the two warrants. Hence, the assignments of error directed to the court’s denial of defendant’s motions for judgments as of nonsuit are without merit.

Defendant’s other assignments of error do not comply with Rules 19(3) and 21. See Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783, et. seq. “We have stated again and again that the error relied upon should be definitely and clearly presented, and the Court not compelled to go beyond the assignment of error itself to learn what the question is.” Brown v. Brown, 264 N.C. 485, 488, 141 S.E. 2d [595]*595875. Nor does defendant’s brief comply with Rule 28. See Cudworth v. Insurance Co., 243 N.C. 584, 585, 91 S.E. 2d 580. Notwithstanding, we have examined the general arguments set forth in defendant’s brief with reference to the assignments of error he attempts to bring forward. Suffice to say, such general arguments do not disclose prejudicial error.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 645, 265 N.C. 594, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mohrmann-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack