Legal Opinion

State v. Murray

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1974No. 7410SC245PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant has brought forward a number of assignments of error relating to the court’s charge. He contends that the court did not instruct the jury adequately on circumstantial evidence and did not define reasonable doubt. In addition, he argues, the court did not set forth his contentions in sufficient detail. However, defendant did not request an instruction defining reasonable doubt, and he did not ask for a more detailed charge on circumstantial evidence or a fuller statement of his contentions. “ ‘Where the charge fully instructs the jury on all substantive features of the…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. State v. WilliamsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. State v. Marshall Norman HicksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. State v. DuboiseSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. State v. TuggleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  5. State v. GaineySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Fisher v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
  2. State v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
  3. State v. EllisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  4. State v. CobbinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  5. State v. CandlerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975

2 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