majority"> Clarkson, J.

At tbe close of tbe State’s evidence and at tbe close of all tbe evidence, tbe defendant, Sam Burno, made motions to dismiss or for judgment of nonsuit. O. S., 4643. Tbe defendant at tbe conclusion of tbe evidence also requested tbe court in writing to instruct tbe jury tbat if tbey found tbe facts to be as testified to by tbe witnesses, that it would be tbeir duty to return a verdict of not guilty as to Sam Burno. Tbe court below refused these motions, and in tbis we can see no error.

Tbe prosecuting witness testified tbat be bad known defendant Burno about eight years. “Each one bit me a lick apiece . . . Sam Burno bit me first. I did not bit them; I bad nothing to bit with.” There is no conjecture or guess about tbis evidence. It is positive and unequivocal tbat defendant Burno bit him and was tbe first to do so. Tbis was sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury, and tbe probative force was for tbe jury to determine and not tbis Court.

Const. of N. C., Art. IV, sec. 8, in part, is as follows: “The Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction to review, upon appeal, any decision of tbe courts below, upon any matter of law or legal inference.”

In S. v. Lawrence, 196 N. C., at p. 564, is tbe following: “Tbe competency, admissibility and sufficiency of evidence is for tbe court to de *271 termine, tbe weight, effect and credibility is for the jury. S. v. Utley, supra, (126 N. C., 997); S. v. Blackwelder, 182 N. C., 899.” S. v. McLeod, 198 N. C., 649.

The assignments of error in regard to the testimony of Dr. M. A. Hatcher cannot be sustained. Doctor Hatcher, an. expert, was being examined as to Williams’ wound and the extent of his injuries. There appeared elsewhere in the defendant’s evidence, some evidence of contradictory statements made by the prosecuting witness about the time that the doctor examined him and of which he was testifying. He testified that Williams could not give a coherent statement of how he came by his injuries. Thereupon, the solicitor asked the doctor, “When do you think he could give a coherent statement?” This was objected to, but the answer was admitted and exception taken. The doctor’s reply was, “It was two days later that he thought he could tell a straight story about it.” The doctor further testified that at this period Williams was responsible, mentally, part of the time, and part of the time he was not. He would talk at times and other times you could get no response to questions. He would appear to be hazy and non compos mentis. This, of course, was material, and it was the kind of evidence that the doctor, as an expert, could give from his own investigation of the patient, at that time. S. v. Fox, 197 N. C., 478, and the cases there cited at p. 486.

In 11 R. C. L., part sec. 35, “Expert opinion evidence,” pp. 609-10, speaking to the subject: “A practicing physician, however, who has attended a patient, or examined him for the purpose of testifying, may state his opinion as to the nature of the disease or disability from which he was suffering, the facts which probably produced or might have produced his condition, the physical or mental effects to be expected from a certain injury or disease, the probable continuance and future course of an existing disease or disability, and the probable or possible cause of death.”

The charge as to motive is not subject to criticism in this jurisdiction. “It is never indispensable to a conviction that a motive for the commission of the crime should appear. . . . S. v. Green, 92 N. C., at p. 782; S. v. Stratford, 149 N. C., 483; S. v. Wilkins, 158 N. C., 603.” S. v. Lawrence, 196 N. C., at p. 565.

In the judgment below we find in law

No error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress