wording instruction in North Carolina

2009App. 352 , 198 S.E.2d 741 (1973), that: It was the opinion of writers at the time of the adoption of Rule 41 that the provisions of that rule follow G.S. 1-25 without change, and the wording of the rule would so indicate. ...

1981It is generally recognized that, “the opinion of the writers at the time of the adoption of Rule 41 [was] that the provisions of that rule follow G.S. 1-25, and the wording of the rule would so indicate.” Whitehurst v. Virginia Dare Transportation Co., 19 N.C.

2024(Emphasis added.) Thus, as to each theory of first-degree murder, the trial court instructed the jury should either “return a verdict of guilty” or “not return a verdict of guilty.” In contrast, for the lesser offenses of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, the trial court specifically instructed the jury that “if you do not so find or have a reasonable doubt as to one or more of these things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty[.]” I also note that the wording of the instruction to “not return a verdict of guilty” as to murder was exactly the same in McHone, w

2024App. at 292, 300 , 620 S.E.2d at 906, 911 .

2016"As the wording of the clause [prohibiting excessive fines] under our North Carolina Constitution is identical to that of the United States Constitution, our analysis is the same under both provisions." Sanford Video & News, Inc ., 146 N.C.App. at 557 , 553 S.E.2d at 219 .

2016"As the wording of the clause [prohibiting excessive fines] under our North Carolina Constitution is identical to that of the United States Constitution, our analysis is the same under both provisions." Sanford Video & News, Inc ., 146 N.C.App. at 557 , 553 S.E.2d at 219 .

2010When the trial court’s instructions to the jury are considered in context as a whole, “we think the jury clearly understood that the burden was upon the State to satisfy it beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense and clearly understood the circumstances under which it should return a verdict of not guilty by reason of self-defense.” State v. Gaines, 283 N.C. 33, 43 , 194 S.E.2d 839, 846 (1973).

2010When the trial court’s instructions to the jury are considered in context as a whole, “we think the jury clearly understood that the burden was upon the State to satisfy it beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant did not act in self-defense and clearly understood the circumstances under which it should return a verdict of not guilty by reason of self-defense.” State v. Gaines, 283 N.C. 33, 43 , 194 S.E.2d 839, 846 (1973).

2006It is well-settled that “the [trial] court is not required to charge in the exact language of the request but need only give the instruction in substance.” State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 100 , 282 S.E.2d 439, 445 (1981).

2006It is well-settled that “the [trial] court is not required to charge in the exact language of the request but need only give the instruction in substance.” State v. Irwin, 304 N.C. 93, 100 , 282 S.E.2d 439, 445 (1981).

1988Rule 10(b)(2), N.C.Rules App. Proc.; State v. Hamilton, 77 N.C.App. 506, 515 , 335 S.E.2d 506, 512 (1985), disc. rev. denied, 315 N.C. 593 , 341 S.E.2d 33 (1986).