State v. Stantliff

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Stantliff

82 S.E.2d 84, 240 N.C. 332, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 424

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 19, 1954

Docket656

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 82 S.E.2d 84 (State v. Stantliff) 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. Stantliff, 82 S.E.2d 84, 240 N.C. 332, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 424 (N.C. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

Bobbitt, J.

Plenary evidence was offered in support of each averment of the bill of indictment.

“Exceptions in the record not set out in appellant’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned by him.” Part Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. 221 N.C. pp. 562-563.

*333 Tbe only exception set out in appellant’s brief appears in tbe record as follows: “Defendant excepts to tbe foregoing charge of tbe court. Exception 7.” Upon tbis exception appellant bases bis only assignment of error; and be asserts in support of tbis assignment that tbe trial judge stressed tbe State’s contentions to sucb extent as to constitute an expression of opinion as to defendant’s guilt in violation of G.S. 1-180. Neither tbe exception, nor tbe assignment of error, nor tbe assertion in tbe brief, calls attention to any particular statements or omissions in tbe court’s summation of tbe respective contentions. All are broadside and are insufficient to draw into focus any assigned error of law. S. v. Moore, 120 N.C. 570, 26 S.E. 697; Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175; Poniros v. Teer Co., 236 N.C. 145, 72 S.E. 2d 9.

However, we have considered tbe charge. No error of law appears. Too, tbe trial judge stated tbe contentions of tbe State and of defendant accurately and fairly. Tbe only possible basis for appellant’s contention is tbe circumstance that more words are devoted to tbe summation of tbe State’s contentions than to tbe summation of defendant’s contentions. Tbis circumstance, standing alone, does not support appellant’s contention. S . v. Jessup, 219 N.C. 620, 14 S.E. 2d 668; Edgewood Knoll Apartments v. Braswell, 239 N.C. 560, 80 S.E. 2d 653. Tbis circumstance necessarily resulted from tbe fact that, in tbe absence of positive evidence in behalf of defendant,- a summation of defendant’s contentions rested on a very limited evidential base.

Defendant’s assignment of error is without merit.

No error.

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

Bobbitt, J.

Plenary evidence was offered in support of each averment of the bill of indictment.

“Exceptions in the record not set out in appellant’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned by him.” Part Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. 221 N.C. pp. 562-563.

*333 Tbe only exception set out in appellant’s brief appears in tbe record as follows: “Defendant excepts to tbe foregoing charge of tbe court. Exception 7.” Upon tbis exception appellant bases bis only assignment of error; and be asserts in support of tbis assignment that tbe trial judge stressed tbe State’s contentions to sucb extent as to constitute an expression of opinion as to defendant’s guilt in violation of G.S. 1-180. Neither tbe exception, nor tbe assignment of error, nor tbe assertion in tbe brief, calls attention to any particular statements or omissions in tbe court’s summation of tbe respective contentions. All are broadside and are insufficient to draw into focus any assigned error of law. S. v. Moore, 120 N.C. 570, 26 S.E. 697; Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175; Poniros v. Teer Co., 236 N.C. 145, 72 S.E. 2d 9.

However, we have considered tbe charge. No error of law appears. Too, tbe trial judge stated tbe contentions of tbe State and of defendant accurately and fairly. Tbe only possible basis for appellant’s contention is tbe circumstance that more words are devoted to tbe summation of tbe State’s contentions than to tbe summation of defendant’s contentions. Tbis circumstance, standing alone, does not support appellant’s contention. S . v. Jessup, 219 N.C. 620, 14 S.E. 2d 668; Edgewood Knoll Apartments v. Braswell, 239 N.C. 560, 80 S.E. 2d 653. Tbis circumstance necessarily resulted from tbe fact that, in tbe absence of positive evidence in behalf of defendant,- a summation of defendant’s contentions rested on a very limited evidential base.

Defendant’s assignment of error is without merit.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 S.E.2d 84, 240 N.C. 332, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stantliff-nc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack