Legal Opinion

State v. Martin

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided January 17, 1978No. 7714SC657PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

The one assignment of error brought forward and discussed in defendant’s brief is set out in the record as follows: “For that the trial Court committed prejudicial and reversible error in failing to charge the jury upon the lesser offenses of mansalughter [sic] in its varying degrees, self-defense or accident.”

According to G.S. 1-180 the trial judge is required to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.” *110The statute comprehends instructions by the trial judge “on all substantial features of the case arising on the evidence without special request…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. DooleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  2. State v. MooreCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
  3. State v. DouglasCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. State v. AubertSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API