State v. Davis
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtDevin, J.
The defendant noted numerous exceptions to the rulings of the trial court, but the principal attack made on the validity of the verdict and judgment below was on the ground that Lola Mae Reeves and Miss Wooten were rendered incompetent to testify against the defendant by the proviso in the statute defining the criminal offense of fornication and adultery that “the admissions or confessions of one shall not be received in evidence against the other.” G.S. 14-184. However, we think this statutory prohibition relates to extra-judicial declarations and does not have the effect of preventing one…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Commonwealth v. ElliottSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1928
- State v. WillisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1898
- State v. . GuestSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- State v. . AbernethySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
- State v. . GoreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- State v. McClainSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- United States v. Frank P. LaurelliCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1961
- State v. ColeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- State v. BrowderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- State v. BryantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.