Case Name: STATE v. ROBERT AARON GARNER
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1958-10-29
Citations: 249 N.C. 127
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. ROBERT AARON GARNER.
Judges: PARKER, J., not sitting.
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 249
Pages: 127–128

Head Matter:
STATE v. ROBERT AARON GARNER.
(Filed 29 October, 1958.)
1. Criminal Law § 154—
An assignment of error not supported by an exception is ineffectual.
2. Criminal Law § 156—
When the charge read contextually clearly presents the applicable principles of law in such manner as to leave no reasonable ground to believe that the jury was misinformed or misled, an assignment of error ■thereto cannot be sustained.
Parker, J., not sitting.
Appeal by defendant from Clark, J., January Term, 1958, of Granville.
Indicted for the murder of Murphy Ellis, defendant was put on trial for second degree murder or manslaughter as the evidence might justify.
The jury’s verdict was “Guilty of Manslaughter.” Thereupon, the court pronounced judgment imposing a prison sentence of 15 years, from which defendant appealed, assigning errors.
Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Mc-Galliard for the State.
Hugh M. Currin for defendant, appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
There was ample evidence to support the verdict. Indeed, no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence. The assignments of error brought forward in defendant's brief, referred to below, relate solely to the charge.
Assignments 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, based on exceptions of like number, are directed to designated portions of the charge. Assignment 9, based on Exception 9, is directed to the failure of the court to instruct the jury as set out in this exception and assignment. Assignments 11, 12, and 13 are not supported by exceptions; hence, no question of law is presented thereby. Rigsbee v. Perkins, 242 N.C. 502, 87 S.E. 2d 926; S. v. Britt, 225 N.C. 364, 34 S.E. 2d 408.
Careful consideration of each of defendant's assignments fails to disclose prejudicial error; for the charge, when read as a composite whole, indicates clearly that the applicable principles of law were presented in such manner as to leave no reasonable ground to believe that the jury was misinformed or misled. Hence, defendant's assignments are overruled.
No error.
PARKER, J., not sitting.