State v. Tate

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Tate

111 S.E.2d 190, 251 N.C. 347, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 562

DecidedDecember 2, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 111 S.E.2d 190 (State v. Tate) 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. Tate, 111 S.E.2d 190, 251 N.C. 347, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 562 (N.C. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

All of defendant’s assignments of error are to the charge of the court to the jury. The court’s definition of the crime of larceny is in substantial accord with our decisions defining larceny. A careful reading of the charge in its entirety fails to show that the court implied or intimated an opinion in respect to the evidence. All of defendant’s assignments of error have been carefully considered, and are overruled. Defendant has failed to show prejudicial error in the charge that would justify a new trial.

No error.

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

Pee Cueiam.

All of defendant’s assignments of error are to the charge of the court to the jury. The court’s definition of the crime of larceny is in substantial accord with our decisions defining larceny. A careful reading of the charge in its entirety fails to show that the court implied or intimated an opinion in respect to the evidence. All of defendant’s assignments of error have been carefully considered, and are overruled. Defendant has failed to show prejudicial error in the charge that would justify a new trial.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E.2d 190, 251 N.C. 347, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 562, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tate-nc-1959.