State v. . Stovall

200 S.E. 426, 214 N.C. 695, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 416
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJanuary 4, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 200 S.E. 426 (State v. . Stovall) 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. . Stovall, 200 S.E. 426, 214 N.C. 695, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 416 (N.C. 1939).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

At the July Term, 1938, Granville Superior Court, the defendant herein, King Solomon Stovall, was tried upon indictment charging him with the murder of one R. T. Moore, which resulted in a conviction of murder in the first degree and sentence of death. From the judgment thus entered, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed until 30 September following to make out and serve his statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was given until 1 November to prepare and file exceptions or countercase. The clerk certifies “that the said King Solomon Stovall has not filed in this oifiee any statement of his case on appeal, and I am informed by his counsel that he does not intend to do so,” and the time for serving statement of case has expired. S. v. Watson, 208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455; S. v. Brown, 206 N. C., 747, 175 S. E., 116. No bond was required, as the defendant was granted the privilege of appealing in forma pauperis. S. v. Stafford, 203 N. C., 601, 166 S. E., 734.

As the record is free from apparent error, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss the appeal under Rule 17 will be allowed. S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421; S. c., ibid., 459, 187 S. E., 586.

Judgment affirmed; appeal dismissed.

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

Related

State v. Warren
223 S.E.2d 317 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
State v. Fowler
155 S.E.2d 83 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
State v. McCoy
71 S.E.2d 921 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)
State v. . Morrow
17 S.E.2d 507 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
State v. . Graham
14 S.E.2d 530 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1941)
State v. . Gibson
8 S.E.2d 804 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
State v. . Flynn
7 S.E.2d 700 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
State v. . Page
7 S.E.2d 559 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
State v. . Williams
6 S.E.2d 492 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
State v. . Young
5 S.E.2d 847 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
State v. . Mayes
5 S.E.2d 722 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Peele v. . Peele
4 S.E.2d 616 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
State v. . Day
2 S.E.2d 569 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
200 S.E. 426, 214 N.C. 695, 1939 N.C. LEXIS 416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-stovall-nc-1939.