State v. . Eliason
Supreme Court of North Carolina
INDICTMENT for fornication and adultery tried at Fall Term, 1884, of Iredell Superior Court, before Gilmer, J. The case states that “the evidence was entirely circumstantial and no act of criminal intercourse was proven by direct testimony.”
Read the full summary
INDICTMENT for fornication and adultery tried at Fall Term, 1884, of Iredell Superior Court, before Gilmer, J. The case states that “the evidence was entirely circumstantial and no act of criminal intercourse was proven by direct testimony.” His Honor, among other things not objected to by the defendants, charged the jury “that this was an offence usually committed in secret, and for this reason perhaps.the law does not require the state to prove actual acts of illicit intercourse; but that the state was required to lay before the jury facts and circumstances that would fully satisfy them…
1Opinion of the CourtAshe, J.
We are unable to see from the statement of the case, or from anything occurring upon the hearing of the case before us, what was the ground of the exception taken to the charge of the court.. It was the rule before The Code effected a change in the practice (§ 412-3), for the defendant to state his exceptions in writing, before the case was finally submitted by the judge’s charge to the jury. And the only change made by The Code is, that the exceptions need not be taken at the time or in writing, and may be taken at the hearing in this court. But even in that case, the defendant is not…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Powell v. StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- Powell v. . StricklandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- State v. . SinodisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1925
- State v. . ChancySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- State v. . AustinSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.