State v. Sparrow

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Sparrow

92 S.E.2d 448, 244 N.C. 81, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 653

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 2, 1956

Docket295

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 S.E.2d 448, 244 N.C. 81, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sparrow-nc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack