Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

126 N.C. 1055

35 S.E 606

State v. . Huggins

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 10, 1900

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1900-04-10

INDictmkNt for murder of John Thomas, tried before Bryan, J., at Special September Term, 1899, of the Superior Court of LeNOIR County. The prisoners were convicted of murder in the second degree, and appealed from the judgment pronounced. Huggins afterwards withdrew his appeal. The other two', Pittman and Johnson, took the exception that the evidence would not warrant their conviction.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1900-04-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1971

6 state decisions

2019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Clark, J.

¶1 The prisoners, Johnson and Pittman, appeal from a conviction of murder in the second degree. The only question presented is as to whether there was any evidence as to them to go to the jury. The Judge ordered the evidence to be set up as' a part of the case on appeal, but by the almost criminal carelessness of some one, it has been, lost, and the county of Lenoir will be put to the expense of another trial, which must be granted. Ritter v. Grimm, 114 N. C., 373; Clemmons v. Archbell, 107 N. C., 653; State v. Parks, Id., 821; Owens v. Paxton, 106 N. C., 480. When court papers are thus lost the matter should, in every instance, be rigidly investigated, and the responsibility fixed.

¶2 The case on appeal does not clearly show that the exception that there was not sufficient evidence to go to the jury was taken before verdict. If it was not, the exception could not be considered, and the failure to send up the evidence would be immaterial, so far as the appeal is concerned. This has been well settled. State v. Harris, 120 N. C., 577, and numerous cases there cited; State v. Wilson, 121 N. C., 650. Put the Attorney-General, from the nature of this case, and following the precedent set by his predecessor in State v. Wilcox, 118 N. C., 1131, consents that the exception may be treated as having been made before verdict.

¶3 New trial.

/126/nc/1055 · .json · Public domain