State v. Nettles

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Nettles

200 S.E.2d 664, 20 N.C. App. 74, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1476

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 28, 1973

DocketNo. 737SC743

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 200 S.E.2d 664 (State v. Nettles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Nettles, 200 S.E.2d 664, 20 N.C. App. 74, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1476 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the credibility of witnesses and on his failure to testify. No request was made for these instructions. “ ‘Where the charge fully instructs the jury on all substantive features of the case, defines and applies the law thereto, and states the contention of the parties, it complies with G.S. 1-180, and a party desiring further elaboration on a particular point ... or a charge on a subordinate feature of the case, must aptly tender request for special instruction.’ ” State v. Hunt, 283 N.C. 617, 623, 197 S.E. 2d 513, 517; accord, State v. Guffey, 265 N.C. 331, 144 S.E. 2d 14; State v. Garrett, 5 N.C. App. 367, 168 S.E. 2d 479, cert. denied, 276 N.C. 85.

It is proper for the judge to charge the jury on the credibility of witnesses, in the absence of a request for such an instruction, but it is not mandatory that he do so. State v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E. 2d 606; State v. Hardee, 6 N.C. App. 147, 169 S.E. 2d 533.

In the same way, the court is not required to give an instruction on the defendant’s failure to testify when there has been no request for such an instruction. In fact, “[o]rdi-narily, it would seem better to give no instruction concerning a defendant’s failure to testify unless such an instruction is [76]*76requested by defendant.” State v. Barbour, 278 N.C. 449, 457, 180 S.E. 2d 115, 120.

No error.

Judges Britt and Morris concur.

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

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the credibility of witnesses and on his failure to testify. No request was made for these instructions. “ ‘Where the charge fully instructs the jury on all substantive features of the case, defines and applies the law thereto, and states the contention of the parties, it complies with G.S. 1-180, and a party desiring further elaboration on a particular point ... or a charge on a subordinate feature of the case, must aptly tender request for special instruction.’ ” State v. Hunt, 283 N.C. 617, 623, 197 S.E. 2d 513, 517; accord, State v. Guffey, 265 N.C. 331, 144 S.E. 2d 14; State v. Garrett, 5 N.C. App. 367, 168 S.E. 2d 479, cert. denied, 276 N.C. 85.

It is proper for the judge to charge the jury on the credibility of witnesses, in the absence of a request for such an instruction, but it is not mandatory that he do so. State v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E. 2d 606; State v. Hardee, 6 N.C. App. 147, 169 S.E. 2d 533.

In the same way, the court is not required to give an instruction on the defendant’s failure to testify when there has been no request for such an instruction. In fact, “[o]rdi-narily, it would seem better to give no instruction concerning a defendant’s failure to testify unless such an instruction is [76]*76requested by defendant.” State v. Barbour, 278 N.C. 449, 457, 180 S.E. 2d 115, 120.

No error.

Judges Britt and Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.E.2d 664, 20 N.C. App. 74, 1973 N.C. App. LEXIS 1476, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-nettles-ncctapp-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack