State v. Seipel

Decided April 6, 1960

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1960-04-06

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the record discloses that the remarks of [plaintiff’s counsel] were apparently invited by remarks of the attorney for defendant in addressing the jury. As to such matter, the control of arguments of [plaintiff’s counsel] and of [defendant’s] counsel to the jury must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 120 N.C. App. 720 - Roberts v. Young

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1960-04-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 1995 · most notably State v. Barfield (1979), State v. Westbrook (1971)

41 state decisions

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Careful consideration of matters to which assignments of error relate fails to reveal prejudicial error for which the judgment below should be disturbed. The evidence shown in the record of case on appeal makes a case for the jury sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, upon which the judgment below is predicated.

¶2 Indeed the principal error assigned relates to remarks made by the Solicitor in his argument to the jury to which defendant objected. In respect thereto the record discloses that the remarks of the Solicitor were apparently invited by remarks of the attorney for defendant in addressing the jury. As to such matter, the control of arguments of Solicitor and of counsel to the jury must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court. Such is the case here. A new trial is not justified.

¶3 No error.