Case ID: nc_244/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. CHARLES OUTLAW.
    (Filed 26 September, 1956.)
    Appeal by defendant from Clarkson, J., at April 1956 Criminal Term, of Gaston.
    Criminal prosecution upon a warrant issued out of Domestic Relations Court, of Gastonia, N. C., charging defendant with assault upon his wife, he being a male person over the age of 18 years, heard in Superior Court before judge and jury, — upon appeal thereto from judgment of said Domestic Relations Court.
    Upon trial in Superior Court the State offered testimony of defendant’s wife and their fourteen-year-old daughter, tending to show that on 26 August, 1955, defendant, while drunk, tried to make his wife and two children leave home and, when they, got in 'her car to leave, he threw a rock about the size of a coconut into the window of the car .shattering glass, filling his wife’s eyes with, glass. There was testimony that defendant said he would fix'the car so his wife could not drive it.
    In instructing the jury the court stated the charge against defendant in the language of the warrant, and declared to the jury that defendant could not be convicted unless the State satisfies the jury beyond ’a reasonable doubt from the evidence that he is' guilty as charged.
    The jury returned a verdict of guilty. And the court pronounced judgment that defendant be confined in the County jail for a period of not less than six nor more than twelve months, and assigned to work 'the roads under the supervision of the State Highway and Public Works Commission.
    Defendant appeals therefrom to the Supreme Court, and assigns error.
    • Attorney-General Patton and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for 'the State.
    
    
      Max L. Childers for Defendant Appellant.
    
   Per Curiam.

The record of case on this appeal reveals that the case was presented to the jury clearly and distinctly in keeping with appropriate principles of law. Error for which a new trial should be ordered is not made to appear. Reiteration of such principles would serve no useful purpose.

Hence, in the judgment below there is

No error.