Legal Opinion

State v. . Journigan

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 5, 1897PublishedCited by 3 opinions

INDICTMENT for perjury, tried before Graham, J., and a jury, at Fall Term, 1896, of FranKlin Superior Court. The defendant was convicted and appealed.

1Opinion of the Court

Faieoloth, O. J.:

The defendant is indicted for perjury. No exception was taken to the evidence. The court charged the jury chat perjury was very much a matter of intent, and that on that they must be satisfied beyond a reason-atle doubt upon “all the facts and circumstances of the case as deposed to by the witness.” ¥e see no expression of opinion on the part of the court in any part of the charge, and the verdict must be taken as conclusive on the question of intent. It is not error, in a civil action, for the court to instruct the jury that if they believe the evidence the defendant is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. . RileySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
  2. State Ex Rel. Hannon v. GrizzardSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1883
  3. State v. . GaitherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1875

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State v. HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  2. State v. . HarrisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921
  3. State v. . ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922

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

Powered by the Exa API