Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/State v. Sparrow

State v. Sparrow

92 S.E.2d 448, 244 N.C. 81, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 653
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 2, 1956·No. 295·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant's only assignment of error is that the trial judge, in charging the jury, “failed to give equal stress to the contentions of the defendant as required by G.S. 1-180.”

Careful study of the evidence and of the charge convinces us that the trial judge sufficiently and fairly reviewed the contentions of defendant. In relation to the facts in evidence, it was natural and reasonable that the review of the State’s contentions should take somewhat longer than the review of defendant’s contentions. The State’s principal witnesses testified in detail as to their transactions with defendant. Defendant’s evidence was that he did not know these men and had had no transactions with them. Hence, defendant offered no evidence in respect of the details of any of the transactions concerning which these witnesses had testified.

The assignment of error is without merit. Hence, the verdict and judgment must stand.

No error.

Johnson, J., not sitting.

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

State v. Sparrow, 92 S.E.2d 448, 244 N.C. 81, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 653 (N.C. 1956).

92 S.E.2d 448 (State v. Sparrow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Smith
292 S.E.2d 264 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1982)
State v. Thompson
274 S.E.2d 381 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
State v. Hunt
254 S.E.2d 591 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)
State v. Evers
159 S.E.2d 372 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Maynard
101 S.E.2d 340 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
State v. Adams
95 S.E.2d 902 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1957)
State v. Sparrow
94 S.E.2d 661 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)