State v. Stantliff

Bobbitt, J. Plenary evidence was offered in support of each averment of the bill of indictment. “Exceptions in the record not set out in appellant’s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned by him.” Part Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. 221 N.C. pp. 562-563. *333 Tbe only exception set out in appellant’s brief appears in tbe record as follows: “Defendant excepts to tbe foregoing charge of tbe court. Exception 7.” Upon tbis exception appellant bases bis only assignment of error; and be asserts in support of tbis assignment that tbe trial judge stressed tbe State’s contentions to sucb extent as to constitute an expression of opinion as to defendant’s guilt in violation of G.S. 1-180. Neither tbe exception, nor tbe assignment of error, nor tbe assertion in tbe brief, calls attention to any particular statements or omissions in tbe court’s summation of tbe respective contentions. All are broadside and are insufficient to draw into focus any assigned error of law. S. v. Moore, 120 N.C. 570, 26 S.E. 697; Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175; Poniros v. Teer Co., 236 N.C. 145, 72 S.E. 2d 9. However, we have considered tbe charge. No error of law appears. Too, tbe trial judge stated tbe contentions of tbe State and of defendant accurately and fairly. Tbe only possible basis for appellant’s contention is tbe circumstance that more words are devoted to tbe summation of tbe State’s contentions than to tbe summation of defendant’s contentions. Tbis circumstance, standing alone, does not support appellant’s contention. S . v. Jessup, 219 N.C. 620, 14 S.E. 2d 668; Edgewood Knoll Apartments v. Braswell, 239 N.C. 560, 80 S.E. 2d 653. Tbis circumstance necessarily resulted from tbe fact that, in tbe absence of positive evidence in behalf of defendant,- a summation of defendant’s contentions rested on a very limited evidential base. Defendant’s assignment of error is without merit. No error.