State v. Lamm
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
"WiNBORNE, J.
The Attorney-General for the State moves in this Court to dismiss the appeal for the reason tbat defendant’s brief does not comply witb Eule 28 of the Eules of Practice in the Supreme Court,— 221 N.C. 544. As to this, we are of opinion tbat the brief is adequate to present the points principally relied upon by defendant as error in the trial court. Hence the motion is not allowed. And, as the life of defendant is at stake in this case, we have given due consideration to each assignment of error shown in the record, and error is not made to appear.
Defendant earnestly contends tbat…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- State v. . BensonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- State v. . PottsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1888
- State v. . PayneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
- State v. . RobinsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- State v. . HawkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1938
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by35 opinions
- State v. WilkersonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
- Chisley v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1953
- State v. FaustSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
- State v. BrittSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.