Court Opinion

ID: 9809995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:37:53.326155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:39:18.971561
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
dissenting: I concur in the statement in the opinion of the Court that “there was evidence upon which the jury could have *747convicted the defendant apart from tbe cheek.” This also clearly appears upon the summing up of the evidence as set out by Mr. Justice W alker.
The evidence in regard to the check may have had slight probative force, and the jury may have thought that it would add none. But the evidence was not incompetent, but merely irrelevant. It could have had no prejudicial effect.
The defendant was not entitled to a new trial for the mere admission of irrelevant testimony. The admission of merely irrelevant testimony cannot be held for error unless it is shown to be prejudicial, Ruffin, C. J., in S. v. Arnold, 35 N. C., 189, often cited since; Bynum, J., in S. v. Gailor, 71 N. C., 92; Smith, G. J., in Comrs. v. Lash, 89 N. C., 165; in Gaylord v. Respass, 92 N. C., 557, and in Jones v. Gall, 93 N. C., 179; Doming v. Gainey, 95 N. C., 532, and there are numerous other cases to this well settled principle.
It cannot be shown that this evidence was prejudicial, for if it does not tend to show the guilt of the defendant, it proves nothing and is harmless. It is not enough that the defendant should assert that the evidence, if irrelevant, was hurtful, but that must be pointed out, and this has not been done.