Summary
In Peurifoy v. State, 53 Ga. App. 515, 517 (186 S.E. 461), the Court of Appeals decided that when an attorney stated to the court that he was entrapped, "it is not error for the judge to allow [him] to cross examine and lead the witness without first subjecting [the attorney] himself to an examination."
Summary of this case from Wilson v. StateOpinion
Filed 14 October, 1959.
1. Criminal Law 18 — The references in the judge's charge to the defendant's trial in and appeal from the Recorder's Court, held not to have impaired in an way defendant's right to a trial de novo in the Superior Court uninfluenced by the trial in the Recorder's Court.
2. Automobiles 74 — In this prosecution for operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway of this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the court's definition of "under the influence" held without error.
3. Criminal Law 160 — The burden is upon defendant to show prejudicial error.
APPEAL by defendant from Parker, J., April, 1959 Criminal Term, of NEW HANOVER.
Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General McGalliard for the State.
William Joslin for defendant, appellant.
HIGGINS, J., not sitting.
This case, upon appeal from the Recorder's Court of New Hanover County, was tried de novo in Superior Court. The warrant charged that defendant operated a vehicle upon a public highway of North Carolina while under influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs. Defendant entered plea of not guilty and a jury was chosen and empanelled. Evidence was offered both by the State and defendant. The jury returned a verdict of guilty.
From judgment imposing a prison sentence defendant appealed and assigned errors.
The case was fairly and fully tried. The references in the evidence and the judge's charge to trial in and appeal from Recorder's Court impaired in no way defendant's right to a trial de novo in Superior Court uninfluenced by the trial in Recorder's Court. S. v. Williamson, 238 N.C. 652, 655, 78 S.E.2d 763. Indeed, such references were favorable to defendant. The judge's definition of the expression, "under the influence," is in substantial conformity to that given by this Court in S. v. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 241, 37 S.E.2d 688. The defendant has failed to show prejudicial error. S. v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 383, 85 S.E.2d 342.
No error.
HIGGINS J., not sitting.