Legal Opinion

State v. Buck

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 31, 1926PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

Assignments of error, based upon exceptions to the overruling by the court of objections to question, on the ground that same was leading, and of objections to testimony on the ground that same was in violation of the “hearsay” rule, cannot be sustained.

Whether counsel shall be permitted to ask a leading question, is within the discretion of the trial judge. The exercise of such discretion will not be reviewed on appeal. Crenshaw v. Johnson, 120 N. C., 270; Bank v. Carr, 130 N. C., 481; S. v. Cobb, 164 N. C., 419; Howell v. Solomon, 167 N. C., 588.

*529Tbe testimony objected to was offered and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. State v. . SigmonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  2. Burnett v. Wilmington, Newbern & Norfolk Railway Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
  3. Howell v. . SolomonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1914
  4. Crenshaw v. JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
  5. Belk Ex Rel. Belk v. BelkSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1917

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State v. FrazierSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. State v. WatkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
  3. State v. TilleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. State v. PearsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  5. State v. CranfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

1 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