State v. Smith
State v. E. H. Smith.
Opinion of the Court
Adams, J.
There is abundant evidence of the defendant’s embezzlement of funds that went into his hands while serving as an agent, employee, or servant of Brunswick County, but.it is unnecessary to investigate the several instances of alleged misapplication. The appellant restricts his brief to the discussion of two questions and thereby abandons all other assignments of error. Rule 28.
Pending the hearing the court ordered the defendant into custody, and to this order the defendant first addresses his brief. No exception was taken when the order was made and none appears in the record.
The conduct of the defendant called for drastic action. His continued absence impeded the trial. The judge states that he made “eyery possible effort to assure the defendant of able Counsel and a fair trial, but the *583 defendant did not seem to appreciate the effort or to respect the court.” It does not appear that the jury knew anything of the order or of the commitment of the defendant; the finding of the court is to the contrary. Under the circumstances the order was within the exercise of legitimate power and affords no sufficient ground for a new trial.
It is contended that the court committed error in failing to charge the jury that the defendant deposited money in the Bank of Cherryville with intent to embezzle it; also in failing to explain the defendant’s testimony that the funds were deposited in his name without his knowledge. These questions were not at issue; the decisive question was whether the defendant embezzled the money after it had been deposited in his name, and it was resolved in favor of the State.
We do not perceive that the defendant was prejudiced by the court’s failure to give a more specific instruction in reference to the money returned by the defendant for the payment of school teachers. The controversy with respect to the principal items in dispute was set forth and the contentions were stated. If the defendant desired an instruction as to any particular item or any subordinate feature of the evidence he should have requested it by a prayer for instruction.
S. v. Merrick, 171 N. C., 795 ;
S. v. O’Neal, 187 N. C., 22 .
Neither the motion for a new trial nor the motion' in arrest of judgment can be sustained.
No error.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 4 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
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.