State v. . Hall
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtSeawell, J.
On the motion for nonsuit, we think the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury and fully justified the verdict. It is true that there were discrepancies in the testimony of the principal witness, such as came, no doubt, from her infirmity, but as to the main features of the case her testimony was clear, direct, and consistent; and looking upon it in its most favorable light to the State, the motion for nonsuit was properly overruled. S. v. Eubanks, 209 N. C., 758, 184 S. E., 839; S. v. Ammons, 204 N. C., 753, 169 S. E., 631.
A motion for new trial for misconduct or prejudice of the jury in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. . AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- State v. . HartSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- State v. . SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
- State v. . RatcliffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930
- State v. . CoxSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. OvermanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. BarefootSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- State v. ThompsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- State v. . JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
- State v. HarrisonSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1960
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.