State v. Stinson
This text of 148 S.E.2d 593 (State v. Stinson) 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.
Opinion
We have carefully examined the defendant’s assignments of error and find them without merit. The motion for continuance was addressed to the discretion of the court. The motion for a directed verdict was properly denied. The court’s charge presented fairly the burden the law required the State to carry before the jury could render a verdict of guilty on either of the charges. Error in the trial or reason why the verdict and judgment should be disturbed are not disclosed.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
148 S.E.2d 593, 267 N.C. 661, 1966 N.C. LEXIS 1105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stinson-nc-1966.