State v. Poplin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Poplin

78 S.E.2d 777, 238 N.C. 728, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 613

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 2, 1953

Docket510

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 78 S.E.2d 777 (State v. Poplin) 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. Poplin, 78 S.E.2d 777, 238 N.C. 728, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 613 (N.C. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Winborne, J.

While defendant, appellant, brings forward and presents in his brief several exceptions to the charge as given by the trial court to the jury, particularly in respect to the burden of proof, some of which may have merit, the assignments of error chiefly relied upon, and rightly so, are based upon exceptions to the failure of the trial court to declare and explain the law arising upon the evidence in the case as it relates to defendant’s legal right to defend himself in his home, and to defénd his home from attack, and to evict trespassers therefrom. See S. v. Spruill, 225 N.C. 356, 34 S.E. 2d 142, and cases there cited; also S. v. Goodson, 235 N.C. 177, 69 S.E. 2d 242, and cases cited.

And the conduct of defendant is to be judged in the light of these rights. Hence what is a home, in the light of the evidence in the case, is a salient element of the right. •

These are substantive features of the ease, as to which defendant is entitled to have the trial court declare and explain the law arising thereon, G.S.'1-18Q, as amended by 1949 Session Laws, Chap. 107, even in the *732 absence of special prayer for instruction in respect thereto. S. v. Spruill, supra, and cases cited.

Other assignments of error need not be considered, as the matters to which they relate may not recur on another trial.

For error pointed out, let there be a

New trial.

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

Winborne, J.

While defendant, appellant, brings forward and presents in his brief several exceptions to the charge as given by the trial court to the jury, particularly in respect to the burden of proof, some of which may have merit, the assignments of error chiefly relied upon, and rightly so, are based upon exceptions to the failure of the trial court to declare and explain the law arising upon the evidence in the case as it relates to defendant’s legal right to defend himself in his home, and to defénd his home from attack, and to evict trespassers therefrom. See S. v. Spruill, 225 N.C. 356, 34 S.E. 2d 142, and cases there cited; also S. v. Goodson, 235 N.C. 177, 69 S.E. 2d 242, and cases cited.

And the conduct of defendant is to be judged in the light of these rights. Hence what is a home, in the light of the evidence in the case, is a salient element of the right. •

These are substantive features of the ease, as to which defendant is entitled to have the trial court declare and explain the law arising thereon, G.S.'1-18Q, as amended by 1949 Session Laws, Chap. 107, even in the *732 absence of special prayer for instruction in respect thereto. S. v. Spruill, supra, and cases cited.

Other assignments of error need not be considered, as the matters to which they relate may not recur on another trial.

For error pointed out, let there be a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 S.E.2d 777, 238 N.C. 728, 1953 N.C. LEXIS 613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-poplin-nc-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack