Court Opinion

ID: 9810146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:41:20.806852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:25.319743
License: Public Domain

DeviN, J.,
dissenting: I cannot agree that a new trial should be ordered in this case. The ground upon which it is awarded seems to me to be of insufficient importance to set aside the verdict and judgment reached after full hearing and a lengthy trial. Even if the trial court’s reference to this type of character evidence as offered was not as full as it might have been, the court seems to have sufficiently correlated the evidence to the plea of self-defense. The jury heard all the evidence and a full and complete charge from the court as to the law, and I cannot see that by the language quoted the jury was thereby influenced to render an improper verdict. The burden is on the defendant here “not only to show error but also that he was prejudiced thereby to the extent that the verdict of the jury was thereby probably influenced against him.” Rea v. Simonwitz, 226 N. C., 379, 38 S. E. (2d), 194. The error must be “material and prejudicial amounting to the denial of some substantial right.” Wilson v. Lumber Co., 186 N. C., 56, 118 S. E., 797.
I think the verdict of the jury should be upheld and the judgment of the Superior Court affirmed.
BaeNhill, J., concurs in dissent.