midpage

State v. . DownsState v. . Downs

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 5, 1896
Versions:118 N.C. 1242
24 S.E. 531
Clark, J.:

The evidence that the shooting had occurred about the time the defendant’s distillery had been cut up was admitted by the court, as it stated, simply to fix the date of the assault. Thus restricted, certainly it was unobjectionable. The evidence of Robert Boyd was very indefinite. Though the defendant as-lced that it be excluded, there was no exception for failure to. do so. Code, Sec. 412 (2). Taylor v. Plummer, 105 N. C., 56. The exception to the charge is not to any specific-instruction, but is a “broadside exception” to the entire charge, and therefore cannot be considered for the reasons given in McKinnon v. Morrison, 104 N. C., 354, and the numerous cases affirming it, Clark’s Code, (2nd Ed.,) pp. 382, 383, and in supplement to same, p. 64. Besides, the charge presented no grounds for exception by this defendant.

No Error..

Case Details

Case Name: State v. . Downs
Court Name: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Date Published: Feb 5, 1896
Citations: 118 N.C. 1242; 24 S.E. 531
Court Abbreviation: N.C.
Log In