State v. Taylor

4 Citing cases

  1. State v. Kimball

    261 N.C. 582 (N.C. 1964)   Cited 8 times

    State v. Johnson, 195 N.C. 657, 143 S.E. 185. In such instance the approved form of instruction is that it would be the jury's duty to return a verdict of guilty as charged if the State has satisfied the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that all the evidence in the case is true (or that the facts in the case are as all the evidence tends to show); otherwise, it would be its duty to return a verdict of not guilty. State v. Baker, 229 N.C. 73, 48 S.E.2d 61; State v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130, 71 S.E.2d 924; Cf. State v. Gibson, 245 N.C. 71, 95 S.E.2d 125; State v. Hayden, 224 N.C. 779, 32 S.E.2d 333. The credibility of the evidence is always for the jury and the judge may never declare that all the evidence tends to show any fact beyond a reasonable doubt. G.S. 1-180.

  2. State v. Williamson

    108 S.E.2d 443 (N.C. 1959)   Cited 13 times   2 Legal Analyses

    Suffice it to say on this point that there are situations in which peremptory instructions are appropriate. State v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130, 71 S.E.2d 924. However, the statement made by Judge Gambill when he was speaking to defendant's counsel does not fully comply with the essentials of such an instruction as set out in the Taylor case, nor does it specifically apply the instructions to the charges in the warrant.

  3. State v. Buck

    74 S.E.2d 925 (N.C. 1953)

    We think no harm has resulted to the defendant from the manner in which this instruction was stated. It was said in S. v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130, 71 S.E.2d 924, that "the use of the word `may' instead of `should' in this excerpt from the charge is not prejudicial." See also S. v. Moore, 185 N.C. 637, 116 S.E. 161.

  4. State v. Shaffner

    49 N.C. App. 89 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980)

    Thus, no instruction on Freeman's interest or credibility was required unless defendant made a timely request for it. State v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130, 71 S.E.2d 924 (1952); State v. Tise, 39 N.C.App. 495, 250 S.E.2d 674, cert. den., 297 N.C. 180, 254 S.E.2d 36 (1979). Defendant admits that "no request for special instructions was tendered to the Court in the present matter."