State v. Smith
State v. Robert Smith and Rosa Robinson.
Opinion of the Court
Stacy, C. J.
The bill in the instant case seems to have been patterned after the one used in the case of S. v. Mull, 193 N. C., 668 , 137 S. E., 866 . Unlike the verdict in the Mull case, however, the verdict here is a general one. The defendants complain at this because,. they say, there was no evidence to support several of the counts in the bill.
S. v. McNeill, 225 N. C., 560 , 35 S. E. (2d), 629 ;
S. v. Graham, 224 N. C., 347 , 30 S. E. (2d), 151 . Even so, it is the rule with us that a *740 verdict may be given significance and correctly interpreted by reference to the allegations, the facts in evidence, and the instructions of the court.
S. v. Whitley, 208 N. C., 661, 182 S. E., 338 ;
S. v. Jones, 211 N. C., 735 , 190 S. E., 733 ;
S. v. Morris, 215 N. C., 552 , 2 S. E. (2d), 554 ;
S. v. Bentley, 223 N. C., 563 , 27 S. E. (2d), 738 . And further, “where the indictment contains several counts, and the evidence applies to one or more, but not to all, a general verdict will be presumed to have been returned on the count or counts to which the evidence relates.”
S. v. Snipes, 185 N. C., 743 , 117 S. E., 500 ;
S. v. Cody, 224 N. C., 470 , 27 S. E. (2d), 283 . “Where there is more than one count in a bill of indictment, and there is a general verdict, the verdict is on each count; and if there is a defect in one or more counts, the verdict will be imputed to the sound count”
— S.
v. Holder (1st syllabus), 133 N. C., 710 , 45 S. E., 862 .
The general verdict, even if upheld by no more than a single count, suffices to support the judgments imposed.
S. v. Beal, 199 N. C., 278 , 154 S. E., 604 ;
S. v. Coleman, 178 N. C., 757 , 101 S. E., 261 ;
S. v. Jarrett, 189 N. C., 516 , 127 S. E., 590 . “When there is a general verdict of guilty on an indictment containing several counts, and only one sentence is imposed, if some of the counts are defective the judgment will be supported by the good count; and, in like manner, if the verdict as to any of the counts is subject to objection for admission of improper testimony or erroneous instruction, the sentence will be supported by the verdict on the other counts, unless the error was such as might or could have affected the verdict on them.”
S. v. Toole (2nd syllabus), 106 N. C., 736 , 11 S. E., 168 .
The evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant, Rosa Robinson, either as a principal or as an aider and abettor.
S. v. Primus and Johnson, ante, 671;
S. v. Williams, 225 N. C., 182 , 33 S. E. (2d), 880 . And even if some of the testimony were inter alios as to her, its prejudicial effect is not apparent.
No reversible error has been made manifest, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.
No error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 19 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.