State v. . Stancell

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Stancell

188 S.E. 637, 210 N.C. 843, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 263

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided December 16, 1936·Published

Opinion

PeRre Curiam.

The evidence at the trial of this action was properly submitted to the jury. There was no error in the refusal of the trial court to allow defendant’s motion that the action be dismissed. C. S., 4643.

The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, denied that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquors or of narcotic drugs at the time he was arrested. His testimony was corroborated by other witnesses offered by him. The evidence for the State, however, was to the contrary. For this reason the issue was for the jury.

There was no error in the charge of the court to the jury. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.

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

PeRre Curiam.

The evidence at the trial of this action was properly submitted to the jury. There was no error in the refusal of the trial court to allow defendant’s motion that the action be dismissed. C. S., 4643.

The defendant, as a witness in his own behalf, denied that he was under the influence of intoxicating liquors or of narcotic drugs at the time he was arrested. His testimony was corroborated by other witnesses offered by him. The evidence for the State, however, was to the contrary. For this reason the issue was for the jury.

There was no error in the charge of the court to the jury. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.

State v. . Stancell, 188 S.E. 637, 210 N.C. 843, 1936 N.C. LEXIS 263 (N.C. 1936).

Pincite

188 S.E. 637 (State v. . Stancell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.