Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. M. C. COLLINS
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1969-07-23
Citations: 5 N.C. App. 516
Docket Number: No. 6928SC276
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. M. C. COLLINS
Judges: Mallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 5
Pages: 516–516

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. M. C. COLLINS
No. 6928SC276
(Filed 23 July 1969)
Criminal Law § 104— nonsuit — consideration of evidence
Contradictions and discrepancies in the State’s evidence are for the jury to resolve and do not warrant granting of the motion for nonsuit.
Appeal by defendant from McLean, J., November 1968 Session of BuNCOMBe Superior Court.
Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with the crime of common-law robbery. He pleaded not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and from judgment imposing prison sentence of three years, defendant appealed.
Attorney General Robert Morgan, Deputy Attorney General Harrison Lewis, and Trial Attorney Eugene A. Smith, for the State.
Robert L. Harrell for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
Paricer, J.
Appellant assigns as error the refusal of the 'trial judge to grant his motions for nonsuit made at the close of the State's evidence and renewed at the close of all evidence. G.S. 15-173. Review of the record reveals that there was substantial evidence tending to prove each essential element of the offense charged. Contradictions and discrepancies in the State's evidence were for the jury to resolve and do not warrant granting of the motion for nonsuit. State v. Carter, 265 N.C. 626, 144 S.E. 2d 826; State v. Simpson, 244 N.C. 325, 93 S.E. 2d 425. Defendant's court-appointed counsel, in his brief, states that this is a case in which an indigent defendant has exercised his absolute right to appeal and placed upon court-appointed counsel the duty of finding error in his trial. Appellant's brief further states that his counsel, after careful research, has found that the court has committed no prejudicial error in denying the motion for nonsuit. The remaining assignments of error have been expressly abandoned in the appellant's brief.
After reviewing the entire record, we find
No error.
Mallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur.