State v. Vample
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, Judge.
Defendants’ assignments of error Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 are all directed to the instructions of the court to the jury. We agree with defendants that in some instances the charge could have been more clearly stated. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that none of the errors assigned by these assignments of error constitute error sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. If the charge, considered as a whole, presents the law fairly and clearly, there is no ground for reversal, even though some of the expressions, standing alone, may be regarded as erroneous.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. McNeilSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
- State v. AycothSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. DawsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. MADAM (X)Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
- State v. HumphreyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. LoganCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. LoganCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. ShumateCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1974