State v. . Thomas

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Thomas

41 S.E.2d 733, 227 N.C. 249, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 380

DecidedMarch 19, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 41 S.E.2d 733 (State v. . Thomas) 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. . Thomas, 41 S.E.2d 733, 227 N.C. 249, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 380 (N.C. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Winborne, J.

By means of numerous exceptions directed to tbe admission of evidence in certain instances, to tbe rejection of evidence in others, to tbe refusal to grant motions for judgment as of nonsuit, to various portions of tbe charge as given by tbe court, and to tbe failure *250 of the court to charge as required by law, the defendants painstakingly direct an extensive and exhaustive search for error. However, after scanning every part of the record of the trial to which the exceptions relate, we are unable to find any prejudicial error. There is evidence, both direct and circumstantial, tending to support the charge of larceny and to connect the defendants with it, either as principals or as aiders and abettors. The case appears to have been tried and presented to the jury in substantial accord with well settled principles of law. And it does not appear that any request was made for more elaborate instruction. Hence, a discussion of the exceptions seriatim would serve no useful purpose.

In the judgment below, we find

No error.

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

Winborne, J.

By means of numerous exceptions directed to tbe admission of evidence in certain instances, to tbe rejection of evidence in others, to tbe refusal to grant motions for judgment as of nonsuit, to various portions of tbe charge as given by tbe court, and to tbe failure *250 of the court to charge as required by law, the defendants painstakingly direct an extensive and exhaustive search for error. However, after scanning every part of the record of the trial to which the exceptions relate, we are unable to find any prejudicial error. There is evidence, both direct and circumstantial, tending to support the charge of larceny and to connect the defendants with it, either as principals or as aiders and abettors. The case appears to have been tried and presented to the jury in substantial accord with well settled principles of law. And it does not appear that any request was made for more elaborate instruction. Hence, a discussion of the exceptions seriatim would serve no useful purpose.

In the judgment below, we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 S.E.2d 733, 227 N.C. 249, 1947 N.C. LEXIS 380, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-thomas-nc-1947.