Title: State v. Mabery
Citation: 195 S.E.2d 304, 283 N.C. 254
Docket Number: 31
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: April 11, 1973

195 S.E.2d 304 (1973)
283 N.C. 254
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Fred MABERY.
No. 31.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
April 11, 1973.
*305 Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, Asst. Attys. Gen. Robert G. Webb and Charles M. Hensey, for the State.
Richard Powell, Greenville, Samuel S. Mitchell, Raleigh, for defendant.
PER CURIAM.
The sole question presented for decision is whether there is prejudicial error in the trial judge's additional instructions on reasonable doubt.
Counsel for defendant correctly concedes that the court's original instructions were ample and free from error. State v. Phillip, 261 N.C. 263, 134 S.E.2d 386; State v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E.2d 133.
After the case had been submitted to the jury, the foreman of the jury requested additional instructions on reasonable doubt. In answer to this request Judge Cohoon additionally charged:
A trial judge is not required to define the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" unless specifically requested to do so. However, when he undertakes to do so the definition should be substantially in accord with definitions approved by this Court. State v. Flippin, 280 N.C. 682, 186 S.E.2d 917; State v. Hammonds, supra.
Judge Cohoon's additional charge on reasonable doubt is substantially in accord with definitions heretofore approved by this Court. State v. Bryant, 282 N.C. 92, 191 S.E.2d 745; State v. Flippin, supra; State v. Hammonds, supra; State v. Brackett, 218 N.C. 369, 11 S.E.2d 146; State v. Schoolfield, 184 N.C. 721, 114 S.E. 466.
There was no error in the trial judge's additional instructions on reasonable doubt.
We have carefully examined this entire record and find no prejudicial error.
No error.