From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Alley

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1920
104 S.E. 365 (N.C. 1920)

Opinion

(Filed 20 October, 1920.)

Criminal Law — Directing Verdict — Instructions.

A verdict may not be directed by the trial judge in a criminal action.

APPEAL by defendant from Daniels, J., at the January Term, 1920, of FRANKLIN.

Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.

W. M. Person for defendant.


This is an indictment for abandonment.

The State offered evidence, and the defendant testified in his own behalf.

At the conclusion of the evidence the record states that the judge said: "Gentlemen, this ends the case. On the testimony of the witness himself he is technically guilty.

Defendant excepted.

The judge then directed the clerk to enter a verdict of guilty. The defendant excepted.

There was a verdict of guilty entered by the clerk, and the defendant appealed from the judgment thereon.


Reversed on authority of S. v. Riley, 113 N.C. 648; S. v. Hill, 141 N.C. 772, holding that the judge cannot direct a verdict in a criminal action.

New trial.


Summaries of

State v. Alley

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Oct 1, 1920
104 S.E. 365 (N.C. 1920)
Case details for

State v. Alley

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. ALLEY

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Oct 1, 1920

Citations

104 S.E. 365 (N.C. 1920)
104 S.E. 365

Citing Cases

State v. Singleton

We think the exception is well taken, and under a uniform line of decisions it must be held for reversible…

State v. Hill

New trial. Cited: Smith v. R. R., 147 N.C. 609; Bank v. Fountain, 148 N.C. 594; S. v. R. R., 149 N.C. 512;…