Case ID: nc_217/html/0177-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Devin, I.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. MOSE COX.
    (Filed 28 February, 1940.)
    1. Criminal Law § 81c—
    Where a general verdict of guilty is returned against a defendant prosecuted upon an indictment containing two counts of equal gravity, any error in the judge’s charge upon one of the counts is harmless, there being no exceptions to the instructions on the other count.
    2. Criminal Law § 79—
    An exception not brought forward and referred to in appellant’s brief is deemed abandoned, Rule 28.
    Appeal by defendant from Cowper, Special Judge, at November Term, 1939, of Beaueoet.
    No error.
    The defendant was charged with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and there was a second count in the warrant charging him with unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. From judgment predicated upon a general verdict of guilty, the defendant appealed.
    
      
      Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the Skate.
    
    
      LeRoy Scott and S. M. Blount for defendant.
    
   Devin, I.

Tbe only exception referred, to in defendant’s brief relates to tbe judge’s charge on tbe first count in tbe warrant. However, as there was a general verdict of guilty, and there was no exception to tbe judge’s instructions to tbe jury on tbe second count which charged sale of intoxicating liquor, any error in tbe trial judge’s statement of tbe law as to unlawful possession would become harmless. S. v. Holder, 133 N. C., 709, 45 S. E., 862; S. v. Coleman, 178 N. C., 757, 101 S. E., 261; S. v. Jarrett, 189 N. C., 516, 127 S. E., 590. There was no motion for judgment of nonsuit. Tbe appellant did not include in bis case on appeal tbe evidence adduced in tbe trial, but tbe statement of tbe evidence contained in the judge’s charge which was sent up, and to which no exception was taken, shows sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The other exception noted by the defendant during the trial was not referred to in his brief, and therefore is deemed abandoned. Rule 28; S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737; In re Beard, 202 N. C., 661, 163 S. E., 748.

In the trial we find

No error.