Page 101 |
Previous | 101 of 843 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 COURT OF APPEALS 73
State v. Penland
the Court of Appeals. We have, nevertheless, carefully reviewed
the entire record and in the trial and judgment appealed from
find
No error.
Chief Judge BROCKa nd Judge CAMPBELLco ncur.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES CLAY PENLAND
No. 7328SC693
(Filed 28 November 1973)
Criminal Law 3 116- instruction on defendant's failure to testify -no
error
While it is better, in the absence of a request, to give no instruc-tion,
the trial court's instruction on defendant's failure to testify which
incorporated the precise language of G.S. 8-54 was not error.
APPEAL by defendant from Lanier, Judge, 26 February
1973, Criminal Session, BUNCOMBSEu perior Court.
The defendant was charged with armed robbery. From a
verdict of guilty and a sentence of not less than 15 years and
not more than 20 years, the defendant appealed.
Attorney General Robert Morgan b.lj Associate Attorney
William Woodward Webb for the State.
Robert S. Swain and Joel Stevenson for defendant appellant.
CAMPBELL, Judge.
The defendant's only contention is that error was commit-ted
when the trial court, without being requested to do so, in-structed
the jury that the defendant had not testified in his own
behalf and that the law of North Carolina gave him the right
to do so. Defendant contends that he was prejudiced because
the trial court did not instruct the jury that it was not to
consider the defendant's action in any manner in reaching
their verdict.
The actual instructions to the jury on this point were:
"Now the defendant in this case has not testified. The
law of North Carolina gives him this privilege. He may or
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.020, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1974 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 20, November 28, 1973 - February 20, 1974. Cited as 20 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 34.5 MB; 842 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_020.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 101 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 COURT OF APPEALS 73 State v. Penland the Court of Appeals. We have, nevertheless, carefully reviewed the entire record and in the trial and judgment appealed from find No error. Chief Judge BROCKa nd Judge CAMPBELLco ncur. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES CLAY PENLAND No. 7328SC693 (Filed 28 November 1973) Criminal Law 3 116- instruction on defendant's failure to testify -no error While it is better, in the absence of a request, to give no instruc-tion, the trial court's instruction on defendant's failure to testify which incorporated the precise language of G.S. 8-54 was not error. APPEAL by defendant from Lanier, Judge, 26 February 1973, Criminal Session, BUNCOMBSEu perior Court. The defendant was charged with armed robbery. From a verdict of guilty and a sentence of not less than 15 years and not more than 20 years, the defendant appealed. Attorney General Robert Morgan b.lj Associate Attorney William Woodward Webb for the State. Robert S. Swain and Joel Stevenson for defendant appellant. CAMPBELL, Judge. The defendant's only contention is that error was commit-ted when the trial court, without being requested to do so, in-structed the jury that the defendant had not testified in his own behalf and that the law of North Carolina gave him the right to do so. Defendant contends that he was prejudiced because the trial court did not instruct the jury that it was not to consider the defendant's action in any manner in reaching their verdict. The actual instructions to the jury on this point were: "Now the defendant in this case has not testified. The law of North Carolina gives him this privilege. He may or |
