State v. . Jones
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Evidence. INDICTMENT, tried before Qudger, Judge, and a jury, at Spring Term, 1885, of Duplin Superior Court. On the trial, there were several exceptions taken to the ruling of the Court in receiving and refusing evidence, only one of which is necessary to consider for the purpose of determining this appeal.
Read the full summary
Evidence. INDICTMENT, tried before Qudger, Judge, and a jury, at Spring Term, 1885, of Duplin Superior Court. On the trial, there were several exceptions taken to the ruling of the Court in receiving and refusing evidence, only one of which is necessary to consider for the purpose of determining this appeal. With the view of showing the flight of the defendant, the Solicitor was allowed by the Court to offer in evidence eight writs of capias, issued to the sheriff of Duplin county, to each of which the sheriff returned “not to be found.” The niuth writ was issued to the sheriff of Wayne…
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
(after stating the facts). We are of opinion that the evidence was improperly admitted. ‘ It was no evidence of flight. It was therefore irrelevant, and may have exerted a prejudicial effect upon the minds of the jury, and when that is so, it is a ground for a new trial. State v. Mikle, 81 N. C., 552.
There was no evidence, as appears from the record, that the defendant had ever resided in the county of Duplin. There was evidence that he had illicit intercourse with the prosecutrix, but where it took place is not stated — except on one occasion, he was seen “in a room of the house of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- State v. . MikleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1879
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. CovingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. LampkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- State v. . PageSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- State v. WisemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
- State v. GaskinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.