State v. Witherspoon

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Witherspoon

157 S.E.2d 362, 271 N.C. 714, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1273

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 1, 1967·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The State’s evidence was more than sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of the crime specified in the bill of indictment. The judge, in his charge to the jury, correctly applied the law to the evidence and fairly presented the contentions of both the State and defendant. The jury resolved the only contested issue of fact, the identity of the person who robbed and shot Mrs. Bates, against defendant. The judge imposed a sentence, which was within the statutory maximum. G.S. 14-87. It therefore does not constitute the cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by Article I, § 14 of the Constitution of North Carolina. State v. LePard, 270 N.C. 157, 153 S.E. 2d 875.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

The State’s evidence was more than sufficient to establish defendant’s guilt of the crime specified in the bill of indictment. The judge, in his charge to the jury, correctly applied the law to the evidence and fairly presented the contentions of both the State and defendant. The jury resolved the only contested issue of fact, the identity of the person who robbed and shot Mrs. Bates, against defendant. The judge imposed a sentence, which was within the statutory maximum. G.S. 14-87. It therefore does not constitute the cruel and unusual punishment forbidden by Article I, § 14 of the Constitution of North Carolina. State v. LePard, 270 N.C. 157, 153 S.E. 2d 875.

No error.

State v. Witherspoon, 157 S.E.2d 362, 271 N.C. 714, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1273 (N.C. 1967).

Pincite

157 S.E.2d 362 (State v. Witherspoon) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related