Legal Opinion

State v. . Helms

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 11, 1940PublishedCited by 24 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

’W'iNBORNE, J.

The defendant presses for error in the main these three assignments: (1) The admission of expert testimony as to fingerprints as substantive evidence; (2) the refusal of the court to grant the motions for judgment as in case of nonsuit; and (3) “the argument of tbe solicitor to the jury to the effect that the wife of this defendant did not go upon the stand as a witness for defendant.” We are of opinion that the first two assignments are not tenable, but that on the facts of this record the third is well taken.

1. Regarding the first and second assignments. It is well established…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. . SpiveySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1909
  2. State v. . TuckerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
  3. State v. . CombsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  4. Jenkins v. North Carolina Ore Dressing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1871
  5. State v. . HuffmanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935

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

3Cited by24 opinions

  1. State v. IrickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  2. State v. BardenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2002
  3. Magwood v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · 1985
  4. State v. RogersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
  5. State v. BanksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1978

19 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