State v. . Robertson

186 S.E. 247, 210 N.C. 266, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 76
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 15, 1936
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 186 S.E. 247 (State v. . Robertson) 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. . Robertson, 186 S.E. 247, 210 N.C. 266, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 76 (N.C. 1936).

Opinion

Connor, J.

There was no error in the refusal of the trial court to allow defendant’s motion for the arrest of judgment in this action, on the ground that there was no evidence at the trial to support the verdict returned by the jury. In the absence of any error or defect on the face of the record in this action, the motion for the arrest of judgment was *268 properly denied. The want of evidence at the trial to support the verdict is not a defect or error in the record, for which the judgment may be arrested. S. v. McKnight, 196 N. C., 259, 145 S. E., 281.

It may be conceded that all the evidence for the State, if believed by the jury, showed that defendant is guilty of burglary in the second degree, at least, and that there was no evidence tending to show that defendant is guilty only of an attempt to commit burglary in the second degree. It does not follow, however, that the acceptance by the court of the verdict returned by the jury was error prejudicial to the defendant. In S. v. Smith, 201 N. C., 494, 160 S. E., 577, it is- said: “A verdict for a lesser degree of the crime charged is logically permissible only when there is evidence tending to support a milder verdict, although there are decisions to the effect that if without supporting evidence a verdict is returned for the lesser offense, it will not be disturbed because it is favorable to the prisoner. S. v. Ratcliff, 199 N. C., 9, 153 S. E., 605.”

In the instant case, -the defendant does not contend in this Court that he is entitled to a new trial. His contentions that there was error in the refusal of his motion for arrest of the judgment, and in the judgment, cannot be sustained. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.

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

Related

State v. Ray
261 S.E.2d 789 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
State v. Vestal
195 S.E.2d 297 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Stephens
93 S.E.2d 431 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
State v. Gaston
73 S.E.2d 311 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
State v. . Bentley
27 S.E.2d 738 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 S.E. 247, 210 N.C. 266, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-robertson-nc-1936.