Legal Opinion

State v. . Robinson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 15, 1948PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBaRNHill, J.

The State ordinarily is not bound by the adverse testimony'of one of its witnesses but may offer other conflicting evidence. That is, it is not precluded from showing that the facts are other than as related by one or more of its witnesses. S. v. Mace, 118 N. C. 1244; S. v. Edwards, 211 N. C. 555, 191 S. E. 1; S. v. Freeman, 213 N. C. 378, 196 S. E. 308; S. v. Todd, 222 N. C. 346, 23 S. E. (2) 47; S. v. Watts, 224 N. C. 771, 32 S. E. (2) 348.

When its evidence is conflicting—some tending to inculpate and some to exculpate the defendant—it is sufficient to repel a demurrer thereto and must be…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. State v. . PrinceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. State v. . BoydSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. State v. . CohoonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
  4. State v. . MacESupreme Court of North Carolina · 1896
  5. State v. . ToddSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. State v. HornerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1958
  2. State v. HambySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  3. State v. SimmonsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. State v. HamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  5. State v. PhelpsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API