State v. Taylor

80 S.E.2d 917, 240 N.C. 117, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 636
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 7, 1954·No. 365·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant assigns as error certain portions of the charge. However, no exceptions were taken to such portions of the charge upon which an assignment of error may rest.

It is the general rule that assignments of error not supported by exceptions duly and timely noted, will not be considered upon appeal. S. v. Oliver, 213 N.C. 386, 196 S.E. 325; In re Will of Beard, 202 N.C. 661, 163 S.E. 748; Dixon v. Osborne, 201 N.C. 489, 160 S.E. 579. For exceptions to this rule see S. v. Dockery, 238 N.C. 222, 77 S.E. 2d 664, and S. v. Parnell, 214 N.C. 467, 199 S.E. 601.

The instant case, however, does not fall within an exception to the general rule. Even so, the charge, when considered contextually, as it must be, was in substantial compliance with our decisions in S. v. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 37 S.E. 2d 688; S. v. Bowen, 226 N.C. 601, 39 S.E. 2d 740, and S. v. Lee, 237 N.C. 263, 74 S.E. 2d 654.

No error.

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

State v. Taylor, 80 S.E.2d 917, 240 N.C. 117, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 636 (N.C. 1954).

80 S.E.2d 917 (State v. Taylor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Williams
284 S.E.2d 437 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1981)
State v. Taylor
259 S.E.2d 502 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1979)
State v. Cunningham
238 S.E.2d 645 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Crumlin
94 S.E.2d 842 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1956)
Beaver v. Crawford Paint Co.
82 S.E.2d 113 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)