State v. . Spencer

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Spencer

35 S.E.2d 887, 225 N.C. 608, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 430

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 21, 1945

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 35 S.E.2d 887 (State v. . Spencer) 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. . Spencer, 35 S.E.2d 887, 225 N.C. 608, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 430 (N.C. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Winborne, J.

When on the trial in Superior Court the judge presiding had concluded, of was about to conclude his charge to the jury, counsel for defendant orally requested certain special instructions:

First. “Would your Honor elaborate a little more upon the fact that if a man is incapacitated for work, what his duty would be in that respect — about how much he can do ? A man is not guilty of failing to provide his wife with support if it is impossible for him to support her.”

To this the court stated: “I told the jury very plainly that he was only required to furnish that support that he was able to from his estate and from his earning capacity, and I tell you that again. In other words, if he can’t provide support, if he is physically unable or has no estate from which he can provide support, the law says that he would not be guilty of failure to support.”

Second. “Would your Honor tell the jury to take into consideration that she (the prosecutrix) has the bulk of defendant’s earning property?”

To this the court replied: “That is a question for the jury.”

Defendant assigns the foregoing responses to the oral requests as error for that he contends that, as to the first, the court failed to state the law and evidence on that phase of the case, and, as to the second, the court failed to charge as requested.

The exceptions are without merit for these reasons: The pertinent statute, G. S., 1-181, formerly Revisal, 538, and C. S., 565, requires *610 counsel praying of the judge instructions to the jury to “put tbeir requests in writing entitled of the cause, and to sign them; otherwise, the judge may disregard them.” Moreover, it is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to give or to refuse a prayer for instruction that is not in writing and signed by the attorney tendering it as required by the statute. G. S., 1-181. See Bank v. Smith, 186 N. C., 635, 120 S. E., 215; also Pritchett v. R. R.; 157 N. C., 88, 72 S. E., 828; and Posey v. Patton, 109 N. C., 455, 14 S. E., 64.

Furthermore, the response to the first request appears to be in compliance with it. And the' response to the second is not an incorrect statement of the law.

Careful consideration of the record in relation to other assignments of error fails to show that they are well founded.

Hence, in the judgment below we find

No error.

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

Winborne, J.

When on the trial in Superior Court the judge presiding had concluded, of was about to conclude his charge to the jury, counsel for defendant orally requested certain special instructions:

First. “Would your Honor elaborate a little more upon the fact that if a man is incapacitated for work, what his duty would be in that respect — about how much he can do ? A man is not guilty of failing to provide his wife with support if it is impossible for him to support her.”

To this the court stated: “I told the jury very plainly that he was only required to furnish that support that he was able to from his estate and from his earning capacity, and I tell you that again. In other words, if he can’t provide support, if he is physically unable or has no estate from which he can provide support, the law says that he would not be guilty of failure to support.”

Second. “Would your Honor tell the jury to take into consideration that she (the prosecutrix) has the bulk of defendant’s earning property?”

To this the court replied: “That is a question for the jury.”

Defendant assigns the foregoing responses to the oral requests as error for that he contends that, as to the first, the court failed to state the law and evidence on that phase of the case, and, as to the second, the court failed to charge as requested.

The exceptions are without merit for these reasons: The pertinent statute, G. S., 1-181, formerly Revisal, 538, and C. S., 565, requires *610 counsel praying of the judge instructions to the jury to “put tbeir requests in writing entitled of the cause, and to sign them; otherwise, the judge may disregard them.” Moreover, it is within the sound discretion of the trial judge to give or to refuse a prayer for instruction that is not in writing and signed by the attorney tendering it as required by the statute. G. S., 1-181. See Bank v. Smith, 186 N. C., 635, 120 S. E., 215; also Pritchett v. R. R.; 157 N. C., 88, 72 S. E., 828; and Posey v. Patton, 109 N. C., 455, 14 S. E., 64.

Furthermore, the response to the first request appears to be in compliance with it. And the' response to the second is not an incorrect statement of the law.

Careful consideration of the record in relation to other assignments of error fails to show that they are well founded.

Hence, in the judgment below we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 S.E.2d 887, 225 N.C. 608, 1945 N.C. LEXIS 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-spencer-nc-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack