honor instruction in North Carolina

2022While it is inevitably a burden, “with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process.” Powers, 499 U.S. at 407 .

2022While it is inevitably a burden, “with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process.” Powers, 499 U.S. at 407 .

2022“Indeed, with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process.” Id. ¶ 39 Because juries are so fundamental to our system, racial discrimination in jury selection is deeply harmful.

2022“Indeed, with the exception of voting, for most citizens the honor and privilege of jury duty is their most significant opportunity to participate in the democratic process.” Id. ¶ 39 Because juries are so fundamental to our system, racial discrimination in jury selection is deeply harmful.

1923In S. v. Vines , 93 N.C. 493 , there was only one witness, and the court charged the jury, if they believed the testimony, the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter.

1923In S. v. Vines, 93 N. C., 493 , there was only one witness, and tbe court charged tbe jury, if they believed tbe testimony, tbe prisoner was guilty of manslaughter.

1922Furniture Co. v. Express Co. , 144 N.C. 639 ; Stewart v. Carpet Co. , 138 N.C. 61 ; Ross v. Cotton Mills, supra; Womble v. Grocery Co., supra; Overcash v. Electric Co. , 144 N.C. 573 ; Page v. Mfg.

1922Furniture Co. v. Express Co., 144 N. C., 639 ; Stewart v. Carpet Co., 138 N. C., 61 ; Ross v. Cotton Mills, supra; Womble v. Grocery Co., supra; Overcash v. Electric Co., 144 N. C., 573 ; Page v. Mfg.

1922Furniture Co. v. Express Co. , 144 N.C. 639 ; Stewart v. Carpet Co. , 138 N.C. 61 ; Ross v. Cotton Mills, supra; Womble v. Grocery Co., supra; Overcash v. Electric Co. , 144 N.C. 573 ; Page v. Mfg.

1922Furniture Co. v. Express Co., 144 N. C., 639 ; Stewart v. Carpet Co., 138 N. C., 61 ; Ross v. Cotton Mills, supra; Womble v. Grocery Co., supra; Overcash v. Electric Co., 144 N. C., 573 ; Page v. Mfg.

1903In State v. Lee, 121 N. C., 584 , this Court disapproved the following “strong and significant language”: “The wife is a competent witness in behalf of her husband, but in view of the close relationship between them, and the cloud of suspicion cast upon her testimony, the law says the jury should scrutinize her testimony with great severity.” In State v. Apple, 121 N. C., 584 , the Court approved the instruction to the jury: “It was their duty to scrutinize the testimony of near relations, but they could not reject it on that account, and that, after thus scrutinizing their testimony, if they

1903In State v. Lee, 121 N. C., 584 , this Court disapproved the following “strong and significant language”: “The wife is a competent witness in behalf of her husband, but in view of the close relationship between them, and the cloud of suspicion cast upon her testimony, the law says the jury should scrutinize her testimony with great severity.” In State v. Apple, 121 N. C., 584 , the Court approved the instruction to the jury: “It was their duty to scrutinize the testimony of near relations, but they could not reject it on that account, and that, after thus scrutinizing their testimony, if they

1967To say that one has failed to use due care or that one has been negligent, without more, is to state a mere unsupported conclusion. “ (N) egligence is not a fact in itself but is the legal result of certain facts.” Shives v. Sample, 238 N.C. 724, 726 , 79 S.E. 2d 193, 195 .

1967To say that one has failed to use due care or that one has been negligent, without more, is to state a mere unsupported conclusion. “ (N) egligence is not a fact in itself but is the legal result of certain facts.” Shives v. Sample, 238 N.C. 724, 726 , 79 S.E. 2d 193, 195 .

1904Wharton on Evidence (2d Ed.), sec. 454; Taylor on Evidence, sec. 58; Kempsey v. McGinnis, 21 Mich., 123 .

1904Wharton Evidence (2 Ed.), sec. 454; Taylor Evidence, sec. 58; Kempsey v. McGinnis , 21 Mich. 123 .

1898It is a mere inference of fact which the *149 jury may or may not make, and it should have been left to them. ” This Court also said in Brooks v. Jones, 33 N. C., 260 that “where there is a total want of probable cause the jury will infer malice almost of necessity, as a prosecution wholly groundless cannot he accounted for in any other way.” On account of the error pointed out in his Honor’s instruction there must he a new trial.

1898His Honor’s error was doubtless based upon a misconception of State v. Gadbury, 117 N. C., 811 , but that case does not hold *1017 that a jury has the discretion to render a verdict for murder in the first or second degree.

1895He did not say “if you believe him on this point your verdict will be for the defendant.” He did not single out the testimony of one particular wit *240 ness when there were others testifying to the same matter, and charge the jury that if they believed a particular witness they should find a certain way, as was done in the cases of Jackson v. Commissioners, 76 N. C., 282 , and Young v. Steamboat Co., 64 N. C., 399 , and which this Court said was improper.

1895He did not say “if you believe him on this point your verdict will be for the defendant.” He did not single out the testimony of one particular wit *240 ness when there were others testifying to the same matter, and charge the jury that if they believed a particular witness they should find a certain way, as was done in the cases of Jackson v. Commissioners, 76 N. C., 282 , and Young v. Steamboat Co., 64 N. C., 399 , and which this Court said was improper.